OK. I'll find one adherent of a religion that teaches absolute pacifism, that will prove that having a military is unconsitutional, and we can all sing kum-ba-ya. That's how it works on your planet:
Posted on 11/13/2007 1:40:53 PM PST by yoe
Since you obviously have no clue what you're talking about, perhaps you should go away and let the grownups have their conversation.
“Evolution does not explain Creation.” - Charles Darwin
Gee...I wonder how that little gem got left out of the school books.
It was in my schoolbooks.
Nonsense. The above italicized line is a purely religious opinion, and it is not in the purview of any teacher to be pushing it off on students.
Prove to me that NO religion finds evolution to be inherently anti-religious.
It is you that needs to understand logic.
The state cannot push religion off on anyone. The statement you have endorsed is absolutely a religious one.
And, what you need to find is just one that believes evolution is inherently anti-religious.
Besides that, evolution IS inherently anti-religious. As Dawkins would agree, there is no need for a God. All the answers are present.
I suppose you’re a smarter evolutionist than him?
Maybe you should read a little William James. The cartoons present an 1890’s version of scientific materialism, which he dismissed as reductionist. Try to get hold of his essay “ Does consciousness exist?”
OK. I'll find one adherent of a religion that teaches absolute pacifism, that will prove that having a military is unconsitutional, and we can all sing kum-ba-ya. That's how it works on your planet:
Besides that, evolution IS inherently anti-religious. As Dawkins would agree, there is no need for a God. All the answers are present.
I suppose you’re a smarter evolutionist than him?
As has been pointed out, Pope John Paul II accepted the fact of evolution. I suppose you think you know more about religion than he did?
"All the answers?" Preposterous. Evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of life. There's one big answer that's missing.
I see that you’ve ignored Dawkins’ comments. I also know that you know that freedom of religion is specifically mentioned in the constitution, whereas “Congress shall make no law respecting pacifism...prohibiting free exercise thereof” is not.
BUT, if there were such a statement, then any schoolteacher being required to teach, “The common view that militarism is inherently anti-pacifist is simply false.” would be violating that prohibition of the state imposing its own pacifist views.
I would also call your attention to the statement itself, “the common view....”
Does common mean “more than one?”
See #129
You obviously have forgotten that historically evolution has claimed a mechanistic, evolutionary climb out of the primeval soup.
Dawkins has not, and I’ve dredged up on these pages in the past textbooks that taught the same.
Just because current apologists for evolution like to claim that evolution deals only with change and not abiogenesis does not mean that it hasn’t taught that and assumed that in the past. (Which it has.)
Also, thanks for making my point about religious disagreement by pointing out the Pope’s position....unless you’re prepared to argue that he’s the only one allowed a voice in this discussion.
That is what I thought— just wanted to be sure.
Maybe there is a bunker you can hide in?
That’s an interesting line of argument but I don’t think it quite hits the mark. The equivalent question and answer in that context would be “can you accept war and still believe in religion?” and “yes. The common view that war is inherently antireligious is simply false.” The distinction (which I admit is a fine one) is that the a government’s war policy isn’t saying that those who’re opposed to it on religious grounds are wrong, merely that they’re in the minority.
Precisely. That’s why the silly argument “some people reject evolution on religious grounds, therefore teaching it in the public schools is an unconstitutional religious preference” is wrong — accepting that argument forces preposterous conclusions (e.g. having an army is an “unconstitutional religious preference” because some religions preach absolute pacifism and others don’t).
Some things really make you scratch your head in wonder. This is one of them.
All primates share a deletion at the same position in the gene that would code for the protein to make Vitamin C, this deletion causes a frame shift mutation and early termination.
If a Retroviral insertion sequence (ERV) is found in the same location in the human genome and the orangutan genome it will also be found in the gorilla and chimp genome. ERV’s found in the same location in chimps and humans will not necessarily be in the same location in other primates. ERV’s shared only between a few closely related species are less changed from their original viral sequence than ERV’s shared between a wide range of species.
Drugs are tested in rats rather than frogs because the former are closer related to us than the latter. This is down to a molecular level, such that drugs that interact with a human protein coded for by human DNA will more likely interact in the same way with a monkey’s protein coded for by monkey DNA than it would a frog’s protein coded for by frog DNA.
Science isn’t speculation and fantasy, it is speculation and data. Speculation based upon the idea of common descent through natural selection tend to agree with the data and yield useful predictions.
Actually not despite the histrionics. It is the current jurisprudence as interpreted by the SCOTUS. Such is life.
By this inane "logic", having an army is not neutral because it gives preference to religions that accept that war is sometimes necessary over those that take an absolute pacifist stand.
Your analogy fails miserably since nobody is compelled to join the Army. Students are compelled to listen to state actors, read teachers, make declarative sentences that may be in direct conflict with their religious beliefs. Do you understand the difference?
If not, try this. The state actor teaches that evolution is incompatible with religion. Presumably you would reply "NONSENSE" to any person taking umbrage at that statement. Of course what you think is really neither here nor there, it's what the 9 aristocrats in the robes think and your view is not congruent with theirs.
Regards.
Precisely wrong.
That’s why the silly argument “some people reject evolution on religious grounds, therefore teaching it in the public schools is an unconstitutional religious preference” is wrong
That isn't the argument but it explains the histrionics.
And your analogy is still weak, try something else.
I don't know much about formal logic but your statement is laughable. When a state actor declares that "evolution is not anti-religious" you only need to find one religion that disagrees with that statement to falsify it, not the other way around.
There is nothing in this article seeking to prevent the teaching of evolution. There is somebody in the article who is seeking to prevent science teachers from making declarative metaphysical statements in it's teaching. It's not even a close call under todays establishment clause jurisprudence unless you think that the religion teacher as state actor can state that evolution is inherently anti-religious. You OK with that?
This is a simple fact. It doesn't address all religions. It simply says that most religious people have no problem reconciling the two.
Those who say that all believers in evolution are non-religious are trying to control the definition of religion.
The fact that a YEC can't reconcile the two is not a problem for the rest of us. No doubt when this comes up young Mr/Miss creationism will tell the rest of the class that they are atheists. In the process the rest of the class will better understand YECists and simply tune them out. Good learning opportunity if you ask me.
Claiming that this endorses non-YEC religions is like claiming history endorses non-'last thursdayism' religions.
Catholic teaching is that Catholics are free to accept evolution as a mechanism for change and they are also free to believe in special creation. Just keeping it real.
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.