Posted on 06/09/2009 5:33:16 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The point wasn't that the kids legally had the right to do it. It was that it isn't happening. You didn't provide any examples of schools that offer classes like that where creation is actually addressed.
Saying that it is possible to happen in a philosophy or comparative religion class is not the same as providing examples of where it actually does happen.
There was never any political action taken to insert creation in to public schools,
Finish the quote please....
It was.....There was never any political action taken to insert creation in to public schools, but rather political action taken to keep it from being forced out.
Creation was in the education of Americans for centuries before the lawsuits forced it out. It's not like creation is being introduced into schools as if it had never been there before. It is not introducing something new. Those political actions were in response to the already taken actions of creation being forced out. The parents who pay taxes to have their own children educated in those schools want creation BACK IN the schools. Taking action to restore what was previously in existence is not the same as introducing something new.
In Georgia, the school board mandated those stickers.
The sticker said: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." Which by no means is introducing religion or creation into schools, but merely making a statement about what a theory is. How you can equate that with introducing creation into schools is beyond me.
The school board in Dover mandated the addition of intelligent design to the curriculum. School boards are political bodies, and those were political actions.
Which is not creationism.
Whatever.....
Just thinks about it ~ so, tell me, where does He do field testing before release?
Your attempts to make creation look silly by asking such questions is backfiring....
God does not do creation in two or three different ways. You're right about one thing, to read that into it, you do have to read it differently.
Real different.....
Chapter 2 of Genesis doesn't contradict chapter one, it just fills in some detail about certain events.
Obviously, the main reason for evos resisting a literal interpretation of Genesis is that they can’t cram their theory in it any other way.
If they took it at face value then they couldn’t say that Adam had a mother because God tells us....
Gen 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
And you can’t get more plain than that that Adam didn’t evolve.
What case in point?
Creation isn’t taught in public schools, only evolution is and it has not been the salvation of science education as the evos like to make it out to be.
Perhaps you could explain why the more evolution is pushed in schools, the more our country’s standing in the world in relation to science is tanking.
“Creation isn’t taught in public schools, only evolution is and it has not been the salvation of science education as the evos like to make it out to be.”
—The “salvation of science education”? I’ve never heard that claim, and don’t even know what it means.
“Perhaps you could explain why the more evolution is pushed in schools, the more our country’s standing in the world in relation to science is tanking.”
—Actually, evolution is taught less in America than in most other countries (except perhaps some of the Muslim nations).
And, if anything, the teaching of evolution has decreased.
Schools - and especially text book publishers - HATE controversy. For textbook publishers, controversy is a sure way to lose sales. That’s why so many textbooks look so similar - if you’re like everyone else, than it’s unlikely to create controversy: don’t change, and don’t say anything new. “Textbook example” has even become an expression to mean “carbon copied” and “common”. Because of this fear of controversy, many textbooks are afraid to touch upon evolution - or do so tentatively and put the subject towards the back of the book. And many schools are afraid to touch the issue as well. In most other countries these problems don’t exist.
Funny, when concerend parents don't want creation or ID, that's OK, but let some concerned parents speak up in favor of ID/creation, (or in this case even simple facts), which btw, is more often the case, well suddenly that somehow doesn't matter.
So parents who want creationism taught in public schools are "concerned parents," but the parents who don't are "godless liberals." Got it.
Sorry--didn't know I needed examples. I won't bother to list any, but I can say that a simple search for "high school comparative religion class" has turned up a lot of examples. Including one case where a school board wanted to add a Bible study class, but when the state told them it was too Christian in approach and suggested a comparative religion class instead, rejected the idea because "If they don't want God in our schools, then we're not going to have Gandhi in our schools!" I think that gets at the heart of the problem: people want their religion taught in school, but not on an equal footing with the other ones.
Creation was in the education of Americans for centuries before the lawsuits forced it out.
First, I'd like to see some support for the fact that in the last century, science classes routinely presented 6-day creation as the explanation for how the world got here. My 1950s education--in Catholic school, no less--sure didn't.
Second, I don't think what was taught in science class centuries ago should be the yardstick for what's taught today.
Which by no means is introducing religion or creation into schools, but merely making a statement about what a theory is. How you can equate that with introducing creation into schools is beyond me.
How you can continue to disingenuously pretend that creationists weren't behind those stickers is beyond me. It was a religiously motivated attempt to single out and try to weaken the teaching of evolution.
Which is not creationism.
You'd have to ask the cdesign proponentists about that.
There are TWO CREATION STORIES right in Genesis.
The problem is you read too much into it without actually reading enough.
At best they’re in the vast minortiy, at worst, they’re exactly like Michael Newdow, who hijacked his own daughter because of his own God insecurities, incidentally of which she herself didn’t suffer from btw.
Either way, they’re hypocrites, pretending as though their view is somehow more important than the majority or is somehow the neutral position.
It’s not.
If they demand God not be in science to such extremes, there’s always Cuba.
Or opting out.
Until then, yeah, they’re godless liberals who demand their view be taught exclusively over all other views.
That’s just how it is...deal with it.
On the other hand, creationists aren’t so extreme, and are far more willing to hear both taught, for the most part.
Revisionist history anyone? Doesn't the Scopes Trials ring a bell?
Loud and clear
Tenn. HB 185, 1925(Butler act):It's like evolution was taught all along and then creation came along and forced it's way in and kicked out evolution
"That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals."
“There are TWO CREATION STORIES right in Genesis.”Did the seminary you attended teach that?
Two stories ~ two creations ~ just a chapter apart ~ with their own sequences.
I'm sure you've got arguments prepared to tie the two together, but that will cause you to deviate from the precision of the timeframe, which is an integral part of the stories ~ both of them ~ and definitely as much a part of the language handed down by God to Moses as any other part. If you deviate you can get the birds to have someplace to land. if you don't deviate you have to explain why the plants have no Sun to give them light and warmth.
No, it’s merely filling in details about chapter one.
That’s an interpretation not supported by the text. It’s yet a second story.
“Does it matter. There are dozens of translations. I gave you my reference for this discussion. Try 2:4 ~ it says right there - to wit: "This is the account 9 of the heavens and the earth when they were created – when the Lord God made the earth and heavens. "” [excerpt]The word that the OKJ renders generations (and whatever you are using renders account) is תולדות (towlĕdah)
1) descendants, results, proceedings, generations, genealogiesa) account of men and their descendants1) genealogical list of one's descendantsb) begetting or account of heaven (metaph)
2) one's contemporaries
3) course of history (of creation etc)
“Two stories ~ two creations ~ just a chapter apart ~ with their own sequences.” [excerpt]Whoa, hold on a second.
“I'm sure you've got arguments prepared to tie the two together,” [excerpt]Nope, sorry.
“but that will cause you to deviate from the precision of the timeframe,” [excerpt]No.
“which is an integral part of the stories ~ both of them ~ and definitely as much a part of the language handed down by God to Moses as any other part.” [excerpt]Yes, the time frame is explicit.
“If you deviate you can get the birds to have someplace to land. if you don't deviate you have to explain why the plants have no Sun to give them light and warmth.” [excerpt]Oh no!
A Day to wait in ABSOLUTE ZERO!
Wrong. It is you who want to use a “special” definition of creationism. I am using the definition you find in the dictionary.
Creationism: the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
All Christians believe the world was created by God. That doesn’t make all Christians creationists.
The Pope for example is not a creationist, but is most certainly a Christian.
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.