Bringing Religion back into the schools...

[psalms 91]

Evolution is a fact...if one choose to deny it, then one choose to ignore all the evidence (and there is a mountain of evidence that must be ignored if making this dishonest choice). Creationism has no such evidence...it is based on faith. It isn't science, and should never be presented as such.



For whom did it work? It certainly has not and does not work for me.

Perhaps not but do you agree that as a country we were stronger before all this so called pc junk was foisted on us? In the 50's and early 60's we were a power to be reckoned with and we had a strong country and ever since we have went downhill and are slowly falling as a nation and a power, you really need to face up to the fact that onmce we forgot God as a nation then things strated really going downhill. Laugh at it all you want but it is the truth.

 

[psalms 91]

Evolution is a fact...if one choose to deny it, then one choose to ignore all the evidence (and there is a mountain of evidence that must be ignored if making this dishonest choice). Creationism has no such evidence...it is based on faith. It isn't science, and should never be presented as such.



For whom did it work? It certainly has not and does not work for me.

By the way I do not discount evolution, I just think that it fits with the bible in that there is an immense gap between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis

 

[MarkFL]

By the way I do not discount evolution, I just think that it fits with the bible in that there is an immense gap between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis

I didn't mean to imply you did deny the evidence on that, Bill...and I apologize if my post came off that way.

Over the years, I have had many people tell me (regarding evolution vs. creationism), "You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind."

I abhor that statement for two reasons:

• I believe what I believe based on the evidence.
• My mind would be changed by evidence, however creationists have already demonstrated that no amount of evidence will change their minds.

 

[psalms 91]

I didn't mean to imply you did deny the evidence on that, Bill...and I apologize if my post came off that way.

Over the years, I have had many people tell me (regarding evolution vs. creationism), "You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind."

I abhor that statement for two reasons:

• I believe what I believe based on the evidence.
• My mind would be changed by evidence, however creationists have already demonstrated that no amount of evidence will change their minds.

I believe that everything was created by God and I also believe that science is not always right but on this issue I do think the two can be brought together nicely without streching anyones wineskin

 

[Lamb]

I didn't mean to imply you did deny the evidence on that, Bill...and I apologize if my post came off that way.

Over the years, I have had many people tell me (regarding evolution vs. creationism), "You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind."

I abhor that statement for two reasons:

• I believe what I believe based on the evidence.
• My mind would be changed by evidence, however creationists have already demonstrated that no amount of evidence will change their minds.

So WHY does that bother you that they won't change their mind? It's their mind

 

[MarkFL]

Science can certainly be wrong, and has been wrong in the past. But the great thing about scientists is that they are the first to admit when they are wrong when the evidence shows it. Science is a self-correcting process.

Science has nothing to say about whether a supernatural being spoke the universe into existence, because it is not a testable hypothesis, and it makes no predictions. It therefore has no place in the science classroom. That's really all I'm trying to say.

 

[MarkFL]

So WHY does that bother you that they won't change their mind? It's their mind

What bothers me is for them to say they cannot change my mind. If they could point to evidence, my mind would be changed. I point to evidence and their mind is not changed. We are not alike at all in that regard, yet they try to make it sound like we are equally footed.

 

[Lamb]

What bothers me is for them to say they cannot change my mind. If they could point to evidence, my mind would be changed. I point to evidence and their mind is not changed. We are not alike at all in that regard, yet they try to make it sound like we are equally footed.

It's evidence you're pointing that YOU see, yet they are seeing in a different way that you cannot. So they won't change their mind. Isn't that how they put it?

 

[MarkFL]

It's evidence you're pointing that YOU see, yet they are seeing in a different way that you cannot. So they won't change their mind. Isn't that how they put it?

Evidence is that which can clearly be shown to the objective...otherwise it is not evidence if one has to put on faith goggles to see it.

 

[Josiah]

Evidence is that which can clearly be shown to the objective...otherwise it is not evidence if one has to put on faith goggles to see it.

I don't accept there is any evidence you could produce that would deny God as Creator.... but I note your dogmatic position on this, and it fully qualifies (to me) as a RELIGIOUS dogmatic statement. IMO, your position is exactly what should NOT happen in schools and is the very violation of church and state that I think is inappropriate.

And I doubt you and I agree on what is so "objective." I work in science.... I'm involved in scientific research.... "Evidence" certainly has a subjective quality and always involves assumptions.



- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

I work in science

Good, then I am certain you would agree that creationism is not science, and should not be taught as such. :thumbsup:

 

[MoreCoffee]

Good, then I am certain you would agree that creationism is not science, and should not be taught as such. :thumbsup:

Creationism can be very annoying when it is all about a 6,000 to 10,000 year old earth and stuff.

I am not sure that religion ought to be in the publicly funded schools ...

 

[MarkFL]

Creationism can be very annoying when it is all about a 6,000 to 10,000 year old earth and stuff.

I am not sure that religion ought to be in the publicly funded schools ...

Yes, young Earth creationism is just plain wrong (and I agree annoying). It is easily falsifiable.

 

[Josiah]

I don't accept there is any evidence you could produce that would deny God as Creator....

but I note your dogmatic position on this, and it fully qualifies (to me) as a RELIGIOUS dogmatic statement. IMO, your position is exactly what should NOT happen in schools and is the very violation of church and state that I think is inappropriate.

And I doubt you and I agree on what is so "objective." I work in science.... I'm involved in scientific research.... "Evidence" certainly has a subjective quality and always involves assumptions.

Good, then I am certain you would agree that creationism is not science, and should not be taught as such.

What I disagree with is schools teaching that God is not the Creator. That's a dogmatic, bold RELIGIOUS statement (and yup, with NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support the claim) and I reject that - embracing the separation of church and state.



- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

What I disagree with is schools teaching that God is not the Creator. That's a dogmatic, bold RELIGIOUS statement (and yup, with NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support the claim) and I reject that - embracing the separation of church and state.

Yes, public schools have no business teaching any god is or is not the creator of the universe. :thumbsup:

 

[MoreCoffee]

What I disagree with is schools teaching that God is not the Creator. That's a dogmatic, bold RELIGIOUS statement (and yup, with NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support the claim) and I reject that - embracing the separation of church and state.
- Josiah

My recollection of high school science and physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics is that God was not mentioned in any part of the curriculum. I do recall one Physics teacher commenting incredulously about the Jehovah's witnesses' theory of a water Canopy above the heaven of the atmosphere and that canopy collapsing and causing the flood of Noah's day. When you think about it, such a notion is really really bad physics and equally bad Mathematics.

 

[tango]

But what if the children of Christian parents were told to bow their heads and be led in a prayer to Allah?

This is where I find the idea of having one religion imposed on people to be distasteful, even if it is the religion I choose to follow. I wouldn't want children subjected to another faith and therefore don't see why children of other faiths should be subjected to mine.

Personally I wish that religious education would cover what the major faiths teach, look at the relative merits of their teachings, and not promote one faith over another. I often think if more people knew more about what different faiths believe there might just be a little less conflict in society. I still remember being in London with some friends one week after Jean Charles de Menezes was shot on the London Underground. I was riding a bus with one particular friend (who wasn't used to a multicultural city), and seeing how agitated he got when a man with brown skin and a beard got on our bus. Of course fear about Islamic terrorists was very high at that point, but what this friend missed was that the man who just got on the bus was wearing a turban. He wasn't a Muslim, he was a Sikh.

 

[Stravinsk]

Yet which religion?

I know that the Christian religion was allowed in the school system in the US for the longest time. But now, we can't expect our religion to be there and not allow others...can we?

I think the better question should be whether there is any real benefit to State Schools or Government education full stop. It's not as if people would have no education at all if they didn't exist, however, there would be more responsibility on parents to do it directly rather than vote on how it's done by others who will always have conflicts of interest due to where (and whether) the funding comes from.