The ACLU can do whatever they want to do, they have that right. I am not arguing that. All I am saying is that I have no problem with "intelligent design" being taught in school. I agree it doesnt belong in an upper level science class, but in general discussion, in a philosophical discussion I feel that there is no problem with exposing my child to that.

 

If it's a philosophical discussion then, shouldn't that be taught in a philosophy class and not a science class? I'd have no problem if "intelligent design" was taught in an elective philosophy class, but science classes are required and this is talking about inserting non-scientific promotion of religious ideas into a science class.

If it's a philosophical discussion then, shouldn't that be taught in a philosophy class and not a science class? I'd have no problem if "intelligent design" was taught in an elective philosophy class, but science classes are required and this is talking about inserting non-scientific promotion of religious ideas into a science class.

636298[/snapback]

 

That last statement is what this debate is all about.

Well my problem is that the ALCU often forgets that freedom of religion in terms of worshipping how you please is also a civil liberty, and in fact is one that has been neglected historically. Seperation of church and state is not all there is to the freedom of religion clauses of the 1st amendment

If it's a philosophical discussion then, shouldn't that be taught in a philosophy class and not a science class? I'd have no problem if "intelligent design" was taught in an elective philosophy class, but science classes are required and this is talking about inserting non-scientific promotion of religious ideas into a science class.

636298[/snapback]

 

That last statement is what this debate is all about.

636299[/snapback]

 

This whole debate really is about groups like the ACLU continuing their assault on Christianity using their misinterpretation of the 1st amendment.

If it's a philosophical discussion then, shouldn't that be taught in a philosophy class and not a science class?? I'd have no problem if "intelligent design" was taught in an elective philosophy class, but science classes are required and this is talking about inserting non-scientific promotion of religious ideas into a science class.

636298[/snapback]

 

That last statement is what this debate is all about.

636299[/snapback]

 

This whole debate really is about groups like the ACLU continuing their assault on Christianity using their misinterpretation of the 1st amendment.

637264[/snapback]

All depends on where you stand in that battle I guess. Doesn't it? I say if you bring candy to school you gotta bring enough for everyone. If you want to teach "intelligent design" (just a sneaky word for God, the Christian one) then teach Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism as all equally possible. Personally, I despise most Christians because they use the church for business contacts. Spiritual people are different though.

Personally, I despise most Christians because they use the church for business contacts.

 

 

 

this is what it really comes down to.

The religion itself is fine, but the people mess it up.

Well my problem is that the ALCU often forgets that freedom of religion in terms of worshipping how you please is also a civil liberty, and in fact is one that has been neglected historically. Seperation of church and state is not all there is to the freedom of religion clauses of the 1st amendment

637224[/snapback]

 

I agree with that. I don't think it is correct to prevent people from praying in public or displaying their faith however they feel. My problem is that some religious people want to impose their beliefs on everyone else and teaching "intelligent design" as a "scientific theory" is in my opinion a violation of that principle of "separation of church and State". If they want to teach such a class in religion class or philosophy class, I have no problem with it, but to impose it as part of the regular curricula reeks of indoctrination to me.

 

I had a problem with some Atheists groups banning prayer groups from schools, because it is violating the rights of the kids who participate in such groups. It goes both ways.

Here my problem:

 

Evolution is just a theory full of flaws yet it is being introdue to kids as the only explanation.

 

Believe it or not:

Atheism and evolution go hand in hand.Is a mean of propaganda for atheist scientific world to further push their believes on the rest of the people.

 

It definitely unfair to provide only one theory and presented as fact rather than theory it is.

The religion itself is fine, but the people mess it up.

637290[/snapback]

 

This generalization sounds like somehting a closeminded bigot would say. So is it ok for Hitler to say he doesnt like Jews b/c they all form business alliances that hurt German businessmen?

Believe it or not:

Atheism and evolution go hand in hand.Is a mean of propaganda for atheist scientific world to further push their believes on the rest of the people.

 

 

I'll have to choose "not" on that one. For you to say that is basically to say science and atheism go hand in hand. I don't necessarily have a problem with that per se, since scientific discoveries ought to make it harder and harder for a rational, thinking person to believe in god in the traditional sense; but it's not part of any atheist "dogma". We don't have big atheist meetings where we read from a biology textbook, and we don't send atheist crusaders to indegenous people and force them at swordpoint to accept the teachings of an 11th grade physics book.

 

 

It definitely unfair to provide only one theory and presented as fact rather than theory it is.

 

The difference is that one theory (evolution) is based upon scientific principles and the other (creationism) is not. Creationism has about as much business being taught in science class as Greek mythology.

Here my problem:

 

Evolution is just a theory full of flaws yet it is being introdue to kids as the only explanation.

 

Believe it or not:

Atheism and evolution go hand in hand.Is a mean of propaganda for atheist scientific world to further push their believes on the rest of the people.

 

It definitely unfair to provide only one theory and presented as fact rather than theory it is.

637941[/snapback]

 

Those rotten atheists and their science.... :mad :

Lets revolt against science!! Burn the books!!

 

 

This whole debate is not about the ACLU attacking the Christian groups. Its about Christian groups who despise and want to burn the establishment clause. How many times have we heard Falwell say the founding father were Christians..Ive read legacy say it too..a nation built on Christian principles...right..no Christian influence on the government. BS.

 

Id like to see you give me solid examples where a the ACLU has advocated restricting the rights of a person from practicing their religion without affecutating public institutions.

Here my problem:

 

Evolution is just a theory full of flaws yet it is being introdue to kids as the only explanation.

 

Believe it or not:

Atheism and evolution go hand in hand.Is a mean of propaganda for atheist scientific world to further push their believes on the rest of the people.

 

It definitely unfair to provide only one theory and presented as fact rather than theory it is.

637941[/snapback]

 

Those rotten atheists and their science.... :mad :

639514[/snapback]

 

Some of you guys are blowing things out of proportions for your own personal amusement.I have nothing against science but I'm against atheist pushing their views as the only proper means of educating America future about how it all began.

 

Atheist community wouldn't want their children expose to creation or anything related to christianity but christian family who have children in public schools have no choice on the matter.

Here my problem:

 

Evolution is just a theory full of flaws yet it is being introdue to kids as the only explanation.

 

Believe it or not:

Atheism and evolution go hand in hand.Is a mean of propaganda for atheist scientific world to further push their believes on the rest of the people.

 

It definitely unfair to provide only one theory and presented as fact rather than theory it is.

637941[/snapback]

 

Those rotten atheists and their science.... :mad :

639514[/snapback]

 

Some of you guys are blowing things out of proportions for your own personal amusement.I have nothing against science but I'm against atheist pushing their views as the only proper means of educating America future about how it all began.

 

Atheist community wouldn't want their children expose to creation or anything related to christianity but christian family who have children in public schools have no choice on the matter.

639889[/snapback]

 

 

The ACLU and evolution theory says nothing about the creation of all existance. That has never been taught as anything in school and is being used as a proxy to undermine science. The central debate is over human existance. Just like in the Scopes trial, people dont want to say that we could have evolved from monkeys and that God put us here. There is plenty of evidence for the former and people in this day and age benefit from that theory.

 

Let me ask you this, do you think medical science and general science should stop basing some of their scientific reasoning on the "theory" of evolution when they are dealing with humans? Should they take into account that perhaps we were created independant of all other beings?

 

Isnt a Christian family that conveniently lets their kids be exposed to medical science formulated from evolution being hypocritical on this matter then by your hypo?

 

We might as well stop letting doctors try to cure us. Its unnatural. Let miracles due the work.

 

 

And Im still waiting for an answer on this: solid examples where a the ACLU has advocated restricting the rights of a person from practicing their religion without affecutating public institutions.

how about telling kids:

 

"this is only a theory, not a fact, and it could very well be false, but is the best scientific theory we have. this however does not disprove any of your religious teachings about creating"

 

would that be ok?

We might as well stop letting doctors try to cure us. Its unnatural. Let miracles due the work.

 

 

A majority of doctors believe in miracles. I'm sure the results of that poll will be most distressing to you :lol

 

BUSINESS WIRE

639953[/snapback]

 

You think doctors sit back let miracles do the work? Use that brain for a second. People out there want doctors not to preform certain invasive procedures because they want God to preform a miracle. You buy into that? Lets look closely at the findings of the random wire based business wire put up by the truely unbiased Jewish Theological seminary that you dug up.

 

74% of doctors believe that miracles have occurred in the past and 73% believe that can occur today. 72% indicating they believe that religion provides a reliable and necessary guide to life.

 

 

Where in the course of that does it even say that doctors prefer the use of miracles over medical science? I bet a mass amount of people think miracles have or could occur. Hell I think miracles have and could occur. Does that mean I think miracles should be prefered over science the way many many nutballs do? Of course not.

 

Furthermore, your use of the poll shows either that you dont get the point being made or that you wanted to use a clearly deceptive poll to imply something but not say it. That poll is done for false conclusions where the numbers dont back it up. Its like the conclusion PETA once had from a Zobgy poll that the majority of Americans think animals should have the same rights as humans(I love that you are on the same level as PETA :lol ).

 

 

Answer me this simple question since you seem unable to actually make a legit point. Do you think miracles should be used before medical science?

 

Furthermore, a person who despises the ACLU as much as you and who has the amazing skills at digging deep into the internet should be able to fulfill my challenge: solid examples where a the ACLU has advocated restricting the rights of a person from practicing their religion without affecutating public institutions.

"this is only a theory, not a fact, and it could very well be false, but is the best scientific theory we have. this however does not disprove any of your religious teachings about creating"

 

First off Im going to assume you mean creating humans and not creation itself.

 

Now the ultimate question you are asking is "should we put disclaimers around secular theories that indirectly affect religion?" First off SCOTA, through its religious encroachment tests, has resoundingly said no. Second off, lets see if you are ok with doing this for other so called theories:

 

Teach that gravity is only a theory because Hinduism teaches that with enough meditation, we can fly from the ground.

 

Teach that Ice age occuring when it did was only a theory because it conflicts with times in the Bible.

 

Are those things ok with you?

 

Cmon dude..how many secular theories will go against many many many religions? You seriously want to let that happen?

You think doctors sit back let miracles do the work?

 

Oddly, I don't recall saying anything of the sort.

 

Refresh my memory with a quoteback. :plain

640359[/snapback]

So what was the point of you posting that poll in reply to my sarcastic statement that we should let miracles do the work and have doctors stop using medicine? Oh wait.....no point once again.

how about telling kids:

 

"this is only a theory, not a fact, and it could very well be false, but is the best scientific theory we have. this however does not disprove any of your religious teachings about creating"

 

would that be ok?

639927[/snapback]

 

why not fill the entire book with disclaimers? and why stop at science books for that matter?

Some of you guys are blowing things out of proportions for your own personal amusement.I have nothing against science but I'm against atheist pushing their views as the only proper means of educating America future about how it all began.

 

Atheist community wouldn't want their children expose to creation or anything related to christianity but christian family who have children in public schools have no choice on the matter.

 

No, we're giving this ridiculous line of reasoning the respect that it deserves - none. How is teaching evolution pushing any sort of atheist agenda, unless you're saying that science is nothing but atheist dogma. Is that what you're saying? If so, then I might ask what the hell are you doing using the internet? Shouldn't you be living on a farm working the land and spurning all sorts of creations spawned from those atheists and their science?

 

If Christian families want their children to be taught creationism, isn't that why they have Bible schools and private schools? Am I missing something? I went to Sunday school to learn about Jesus. Why can't other kids go if their parents want them to learn about the lord so badly? Last I heard, they aren't exactly kicking kids out of Sunday school, and the tuition = $0.

how about telling kids:

 

"this is only a theory, not a fact, and it could very well be false, but is the best scientific theory we have. this however does not disprove any of your religious teachings about creating"

 

would that be ok?

 

 

NO! Why can't the parents teach their children that? I haven't heard any pro-creationist (heh, heh) give a single valid argument as to why the Bible HAS to be taught in school and can't be taught at home. It's like you Chrisitans have completely forgotten the story of Job. I don't see why you can't look at it as a test of your blind faith.

 

Religion has nothing to do with science, so why the hell are you going to put some disclaimer that has nothing to do with science in a science textbook? Technically, a physics textbook does not disprove that Smurfs exist and doesn't disprove that there are aliens on a planet named Krypton that get superpowers when exposed to a yellow sun, why aren't you pushing for those disclaimers as well.

The point seemed rather obvious and declarative to me - some doctors, a majority in fact, have some belief in miracles.

 

 

And that point had nothing to do with what he said. People who are opposed to atheism and think science is atheist dogma are hypocrites by accepting the benefits of medical science, are they not?

 

 

Why do you always look for some sort of hidden meaning in what people write?

 

 

Maybe because you keep putting pointless hidden meanings in your posts.

The point seemed rather obvious and declarative to me - some doctors, a majority in fact, have some belief in miracles.

 

 

And that point had nothing to do with what he said. People who are opposed to atheism and think science is atheist dogma are hypocrites by accepting the benefits of medical science, are they not?

 

Nor does your response to me. BFD. :tissue :

 

Do you have a problem with people injecting interesting little factiods into the conversation?

641061[/snapback]

:lol You are that guy that always says some totally irrelevant factoid during a group conversation that gets the whole group silent for a second..looking around..and then back to the point.

Do you have a problem with people injecting interesting little factiods into the conversation?

 

 

When they're inane and pointless, yes.