"Darwin" curator Niles Eldredge views the exhibit and verdict to be a "one-two punch" against creationism. "We just happened to be there as one of the first things you could point to and say, 'hey people, we're not going to take this lying down and we're going to fight back,'" he says.
In February the Natural History museum reopened its 13-year-old Hall of Human Origins, which had been updated to include interactive displays and other new information such as DNA samples to help tell the story of human evolution, curator Ian Tattersall says.
Through DNA evidence, for example, scientists now know that Neandertals are a distinct kind of hominid with their own identity. Visitors can view a vial of actual 40,000-year-old Neandertal DNA alongside vials of human and chimp DNA and learn about how, say, Homo sapiens migrated out of eastern Africa 70,000 years ago. Fossils alone have not been able to tell this story, because of gaps in the fossil record, Tattersall says.
He denounced the Creation Museum as "a waste of human talent" and energy to promote a bogus idea. "I do not see that anybody's religious beliefs are threatened by evolution, which is simply the only plausible thesis we have for explaining what we see in nature today," he says.
Colin Purrington, a biology professor at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, says that institutions like science museums must not shy away from evolutionary topics, and should make the most of their exhibit spaces to educate the public. On his Web site (http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/evolk12/exhibits/intro.htm) he displays photos of various exhibit labels that misrepresent biological concepts and urged institutions displaying them to remove them. For instance, he implored the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., to take down a "stop" sign that warns visitors that its exhibit on chimpanzee-human relationships "contains some things you may agree with, some you may disagree with, and others that may even trouble you."
"You don't get any of that foolishness in Europe," he says.
See what we're tweeting about
69 Comments
Add CommentThe creationist museum is the balance and does not need to be balanced. The success of it may breed more in other areas and if national museums are going to be used with tax papers money then surely a museum war will break out everywhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat the answer should be is equal time in public museums to allow the people to weigh the case themselves.
"What the answer should be is equal time in public museums to allow the people to weigh the case themselves."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn what basis do you propose that equal time be given ?
So far there is ZERO scientific evidence for creationism/id with extensive evidence for evolution?
Why should a "theory" with ZERO evidence be given equal time (status?) as one with extensive evidence?
Secondly - what is the point of "allowing people to weigh the case"
Who would ensure that the exhibits were as scientifically accurate as possible ?
The creationist museum CERTAINLY does not do this (presents an exhibit of man living along with dinosaurs ? )
The most that could happen is that you would change their opinion. But their opinion (as with anyone's) is irrelevent in science.
Or are you trying to get democracy into science
i.e the validity of scientific theories decided by a vote ?
The museums are owned and paid for by all the people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn such great conclusions on great matters of great interest to the public there can only be a full accuracy on origins as the people see it.
To ignore or deny one side that is well supported by the public , even 50%, is a aggression that is unAmerican.
The evidence for creationism or why evolution is disbelieved is excellent and persuasive to half the population. They are intelligent and if the creationist evidence was givin equal time that number might climb to 75 or 80%.
Freedom of thought, discussion in mutual institutions with mutual funds is the future in these areas.
The reality is that the public wants the truth on origins in thier meuseums and they are just in disagreement.
This must be recognized by meuseums or they are not credible.
The museums are owned and paid for by all the people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn such great conclusions on great matters of great interest to the public there can only be a full accuracy on origins as the people see it.
I missed something here -
you say "full accuracy on origins as the people see it"
You appear to want to present exhibits to meet the beliefs of the people. Is this correct?
To ignore or deny one side that is well supported by the public , even 50%, is a aggression that is unAmerican.
All depends whether you think museums should present the best that science can provide.
I dont see being American or UnAmerican has anything to do with it.
In fact I would say it would be unAmerican to present only creationism in museums. I am sure there are several other beliefs as to the origins of the universe/man, with just as much evidence.
Or do you wish to oppress minority beliefs?
In fact I would say that presenting creationism in a publically funded museum without also displaying other beliefs could fall under the same category as teaching creationism, i.e it is unconstitutional - and for the same reason.
The evidence for creationism or why evolution is disbelieved is excellent and persuasive to half the population.
Are you talking about evidence, or scientific evidence.?
So far there is scientific evidence supporting evolution, none supporting creationism
Has it crossed your mind that belief/disbelief may have nothing to do with scientific evidence.?
Has it crossed your mind that a substantial proportion of the population may not be able to assess the credibility of scientific evidence.?
So the credibility/incredibility of evidence may have nothing to do with what the population believes.
They are intelligent and if the creationist evidence was givin equal time that number might climb to 75 or 80%.
It might well climb to 100% - but so what?
You think science is democratic ?
You think the validity of a scientific theory is decided by a vote?
Freedom of thought, discussion in mutual institutions with mutual funds is the future in these areas.
Nobody questions freedom of thought.
What "future" are you talking about.
To present exhibits with no scientific basis in the same context as exhibits with a scientific basis, (presumably in an attempt to influence their thoughts.) ?
I would say this is lying to the public, as you are implying equivalency when none exists.
The reality is that the public wants the truth on origins in thier meuseums and they are just in disagreement.
I agree that the public want truth, they deserve truth, but it depends what YOU mean by "truth"
Creationist museum presents man living alongside dinosaurs as "truth"
Creationists have NO evidence to support this but it has become "truth" in their museum
In fact ALL scientific evidence say man lived millions of years after dinosaurs.
Many "scientific facts" are presented on creationist sites when they are neither "facts" nor "scientific".
So which "truth" are you talking about?
Robert Byers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To ignore or deny one side that is well supported by the public , even 50%, is a aggression that is unAmerican"
More than 50% of Americans believe that president Kennedy was shot by more that 1 person.
There is NO evidence to support this.
(personally I believe Kennedy was shot by more than 1 person because of a few personal observations)
So you believe a museum to Kennedy (should one exist) SHOULD have an exhibit showing multiple murderers together with the official version, just because the majority of Americans believe it ?
Again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese are public institutions and since they are discussing the great subject of origins then they must show the sides of this issue that are held by hundreds etc of millions.
To pretent that the first, the ancient, the common, opinion of God/Genesis does not exist or matter is absurdity of indoctrination.
Creationism must be shown as its not decided by the government what the truth is.
In fact to decide God/Genesis is not true is to interfere with religion. Illegal.
The institutions should show both sides and let the people be exposed to both sides and let their intelligence take it from there.
The museums are not just showing "science" but are making hard and fast conclusions about origins. These conclusions can be taken on very well by Creationism and its evidence and its "science".
These places shouls showcase the reality of discussion in America and not be a provoking propaganda for one side only.
Freedom of speech and discussion is the future here.
Why kick and scream?
"These are public institutions and since they are discussing the great subject of origins then they must show the sides of this issue that are held by hundreds etc of millions."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI dont see that museums are places to "discuss" subjects.
They are places to present factual (i.e. scientific evidence).
IF (and this is a big if) creationism had ANY scientific evidence to support it then of course it SHOULD be shown in a museum, but since it doesn't then it has no place.
"To pretent that the first, the ancient, the common, opinion of God/Genesis does not exist or matter is absurdity of indoctrination"
Sorry there are several beliefs dating from around the same period as the belief in god/genesis and many predating christianity. I dont think anyone has established the"first religion".
Also you have presented a straw dog argument - NO-ONE says the belief does not exist or does not matter. OF COURSE it exists and matters. So this is a stupid argument.
"creationism must be shown as its not decided by the government what the truth is."
I dont know anyone who remotely believes the government "decides" what is truth.
If fact I know many who automatically believe "truth" to be the opposite of what the govenrment says.
All a museum is doing is presenting scientific evidence, YOU decide whether to believe it or not.
"In fact to decide God/Genesis is not true is to interfere with religion. Illegal."
This is a stupid argument on 3 counts.
1) No-one is "interfering" with religion, you can believe whatever you like.
2) No-one is "deciding" what is "truth"
3) You are presenting that because someone is not presenting your case then they are "interfering" with your religion.
(i.e. president Bush's line - "If you are not for us then you are against us" - He was stupid too)
"The institutions should show both sides and let the people be exposed to both sides and let their intelligence take it from there."
You say "both sides" implying there are only 2 sides.
Sorry there are MANY more than 2 sides.
Of the 2 sides you identify 1 is scientific , the other as you say is religious
To represent JUST 1 religion has already been decided as unconstitutional and IS illegal.
"The museums are not just showing "science" but are making hard and fast conclusions about origins."
Again - I dont see why you believe museums make "conclusions" about origins
Science has evidence, so museums present it.
Creationism does not have evidence, so museums dont show creationism.
"These conclusions can be taken on very well by Creationism and its evidence and its "science".
You really ought to read more on the science (from a REAL science site) behind the evidence presented by creationism, (both for creationism, and against evolution).
Sorry - my mistake - I have NEVER seen ANY evidence FOR creationism, so you might have a problem there.
I have read over 50 "conclusions" against evolution presented by creationism, NONE have held any scientific credibility. Some of them are frankly pathetic.
"These places shouls showcase the reality of discussion in America and not be a provoking propaganda for one side only."
So you think so long as people believe it then museums should present fiction as well as fact.?
I think not.
"Freedom of speech and discussion is the future here."
Again you seem the think that science, and the validity of scientific theories, is decided by opinion, discussion, or a vote - STUPID. - (I cant emphasise this enough.)
Robert Byers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to be labouring under a mis-understanding.
Science does not say ANY of its theories are the "truth"
Only that AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, using scientific evidence, (i.e. not opinion, or unfounded assumptions) the currently accepted theory is the BEST explanation of the phenomina/observation explained in the theory.
Should a theory come along that explains the phenomina/oberservation more accurately/better that I have no doubt this will become the new accepted theory.
The evidence I have for my belief. -
Neuton's laws of gravity were held as the definitive explanation of gravity in all circumstances for 250 years until "improved" by Einstein in 1917.
Robert Byers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have repeatedly asserted that museums should show the creationist viewpoint, specifically because they are publicly funded.
I notice you ignore the special tax status of anything religious. So any religious buildings can also be considered as publicly funded.
However creationist viewpoint only IS endorsed in thousands of churches.
Not exactly the unbiased presentation you want of museums.
SHOULD creationist exhibits be shown in museums then I would assume YOU would also endorse evolutionist lectures in churches. After all, you say you dont want bias in publicly funded buildings.
In regard to this I agree with Richard Dawkins that there is NO good reason why religions should have ANY special tax status, and this should be removed.
(Since this would apply to ALL religions then it would NOT be unconstitutional)
Robert Byers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To pretent that the first, the ancient, the common, opinion of God/Genesis does not exist or matter is absurdity of indoctrination"
I investigated a little and found there are several religions that predate (some substantially) any belief in god/genesis. So I would say your statement of this as the "first" is well off the mark.
You avoid my answers. You do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese are public institutions.
They are teaching about origins. They are saying their conclusions are true. not tentative.
They therefore are saying other ideas are not true.
Yes they are.
they are rejecting the first, great, common belief that god/Genesis are the origin of certain things.
So its illegal.
The museums are being used to propagate one side in a nation of two sides.
This won't last.
If your side is confident then why shy from showing the best of both positions./
Robert Byers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You avoid my answers. You do."
Some else who doesn't read THEIR OWN POSTS
IN ALL YOUR POSTS YOU HAVE ASKED 2 QUESTIONS
ONE OF THESE WAS
"Why kick and scream?"
SINCE YOU ARE THE ONE KICKING AND SCREAMING I ASSUMED THE QUESTION WAS RHETORICAL
I HAVE ASKED YOU 18 QUESTIONS
YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED ANY OF MINE.
"These are public institutions.
They are teaching about origins. They are saying their conclusions are true. not tentative."
STUPID - I HAVE REBUTTED YOUR STATEMENT SEVERAL TIMES
1) MUSEUMS DO NOT TEACH ANYTHING - THEY PRESENT EVIDENCE.
2) MUSEUMS DO NOT CONCLUDE ANYTHING - VISITORS LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED AND MAKE UP THEIR OWN MIND
DO YOU UNDERSTAND ? QUESTION 19
"They therefore are saying other ideas are not true.
Yes they are."
THEY DO NOT SAY ANY OTHER IDEAS ARE NOT TRUE -
THEY JUST DO NOT PRESENT OPINION OR BASELESS EVIDENCE
CREATIONISM DOES NOT PRESENT ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS BELIEF SO IT IS NOT EXHIBITED.
HOW CAN YOU EXHIBIT EVIDENCE THAT DOES NOT EXIST? - QUESTION 20
SO NO THEY DO NOT SAY ANY IDEA IS NOT TRUE. - DO YOU UNDERSTAND ? - QUESTION 21
THEY ARE SAYING THAT THERE IS NOT EVIDENCE - DO YOU UNDERSTAND ?- QUESTION 22
"they are rejecting the first, great, common belief that god/Genesis are the origin of certain things.
So its illegal."
YOU ARE REPEATING WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER
YOU ALSO HAVE NOT READ WHAT I SAID EARLIER IN REPLY
e.g the belief in god/genesis is NOT the FIRST RELIGION -
IT IS ILLEGAL TO PRESENT JUST 1 BELIEF WHICH IS WHAT YOU WANT.
THIS WAS A RECENT SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT - DO YOU UNDERSTAND ?- QUESTION 23
"The museums are being used to propagate one side in a nation of two sides".
YOU ARE BEING STUPID - THERE ARE MANY MORE THAN 2 SIDES - DO YOU UNDERSTAND ? - QUESTION 24
OF ALL THE SIDES ONLY 1 HAS PRESENTED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT
DO YOU UNDERSTAND ? - QUESTION 25
"This won't last.
If your side is confident then why shy from showing the best of both positions."
I WOULD BE HAPPY IF ANY BELIEF COULD SHOW SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR THEIR BELIEF IN A MUSEUM.
BUT SINCE THEY DONT HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THEN THEY SHOULD NOT -
DO YOU UNDERSTAND ? - QUESTION 26
WHY SHOULD YOUR BELIEF BE DISPLAYED AND NOT BELIEF IN THE FSM - THERE IS AS MUCH EVIDENCE OF THE FSM AS YOUR BELIEF ? QUESTION 27
Robert Byers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf your side is confident then why shy from showing the best of both positions.
IF creationism could provide scientific evidence in support I would be happy.
But I dont see why opinion ,baseless assumptions, and non scientific evidence should be presented as having the same credibility/validity as scientific evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobert Byers
Sorry my mistake
Up to your last post you had asked ONLY 1 question
(the one I have identified)
I had asked 14 actual questions (I had included some implied questions)
Which particular unanswered question do you have a problem with ?
(There's another question for you)
YOU have not answered ANY of mine, just re-iterated statements I rebutted.
Robert Byers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In fact to decide God/Genesis is not true is to interfere with religion. Illegal."
Please identify which specific law you think is broken and how it is broken?
(another question - actually 2 questions?)
We have been around the block here but to your last question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe law in America is that there is to be no interference of the state with the Church. Or church with state. This concept is recently used to prohibit creationism in public schools etc.
Well.
since the museums are teaching against certain christian doctrines by teaching evolution etc. then the state in interfering with the church. its teaching the people the church stuff is wrong.
This is illegal.
Either it cease and desist or both sides be allowed equal time.
public institutions are a part of the state if the schools are.
Its a matter of time before the law is used to put things straight.
No we haven't been around the block
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have asked many many questions which you have declined to answer.
You have just repeatedly made the same assertions, but have completeley ignored my rebuttal of them.
I would say you have just gone in a straight line, ignoring all objections. Not around the block at all
Secondly
"The law in America is that there is to be no interference of the state with the Church. Or church with state. This concept is recently used to prohibit creationism in public schools etc."
Do you read nothing
The recent judgement of the supreme court was that
1) creationism/id is a religion.
2) the evolution is a science.
3) the teaching of 1 religion is unconstitutional (as it requires the state to give preferential treatment to the specific religion)
You are also incorect
The constitution does not permit the state to prevent the establishment of a religion, or prevent believers from following a religion, or giving preferential treatment to a specific belief.
(You also say "church" . This is technically incorrect as "church" implies christianity. The law applies equally to ALL religious beliefs, including belief in the FSM)
(ALso technically I dont think there is any LAW that prevents church (actually any religion) interfering with the state.)
"Well.
since the museums are teaching against certain christian doctrines by teaching evolution etc. then the state in interfering with the church. its teaching the people the church stuff is wrong."
Well well you are wrong again on 4 counts
1) The the supreme court has already judged evolution to be a science, i.e. not a religion (so museums are not giving preferential treatment to a specific religion)
2) The state IS NOT interfering with either the establishment of a religion or YOU from following it.
3) As I have said many times before
a) museums present evidence - they do not teach
b) they do not say you are wrong
4) You are using the same argument as used creationists wishing to teach creationism as a science in schools , As this arguement has already been rejected by the supreme court then I would say you are rejecting the courts decision
If you wish to contradict the supreme court they I suggest you sue them or whatever.
Either it cease and desist or both sides be allowed equal time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain you ignore what I said.
1) There are MANY more than 2 sides.
2) You also say equsal time. Why equal time ?
Why should opinion and baseless assumption be judged to have the same validity as scientific evidence.
Also the amount scientific evidence for evolution is far greater and complex (i.e. would take far far longer/take more space to present), than ANY evidence (of ANY sort) that creationism could present.
You must live on a strange block. from here its been a circle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou mention again the courts. Yet they are wrong since the '60's.
In teaching one faith (some doctrines) are wrong one is using the state to interfere with religion. surely.
Creationism is only coincedent to be aligned with religion.
its the truth. Too bad if it has religious overtones.
further and more important.
if the state is saying the religion is false on doctrines then it is putting beneath something as a matter of truth.
no way around it. if the bible is not acceptable in state institutions because of the separation concept then likewise the bible can't be treated as not true by the same separation concept
Its simply impossible for the state to censor/prohibit something on a matter of truth without in effect and indeed saying its officialy not true. This is illegal.
Youwill in the future need better lawyers then the ones you have now.
If Genesis is illegal because of the constitution then attacking genesis is illegal too.
Thats logic.\
"You must live on a strange block. from here its been a circle."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA circle of argument implies argument,counter-argument, and so on back to the beginning.
You have presented statements, I have argued against them giving reasons, You have persisted with the same argument,
You have not countered mine, or presented further argument, but persisted with the same arguements.. i.e a straight line
"you mention again the courts. Yet they are wrong since the '60's."
You first metioned the law not me
So you are saying the law is wrong ?
I am sure the courts will bow to your opinion..
"In teaching one faith (some doctrines) are wrong one is using the state to interfere with religion. surely.
Creationism is only coincedent to be aligned with religion."
"aligned with religion" ?
Creationism takes as its basis the belief in god/creation.
I would say this "defines" it as a religion.
AGAIN - NO-ONE is "interfering" with a religion - you are free to believe creationsm if you wish.
WHATEVER museums do it is not preventing anyone from exercising that right.
AGAIN - IT IS ILLEGAL FOR THE STATE TO ENDORSE 1 RELIGION (BY SHOWING JUST THAT1 RELIGION IN A MUSEUM) AS IT WOULD BE SHOWING PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF THAT 1 RELIGION.
MUSEUMS DO NOT SAY ANY RELIGION IS WRONG - THEY JUST PRESENT EVIDENCE.
"further and more important.
if the state is saying the religion is false on doctrines then it is putting beneath something as a matter of truth."
WHO SAYS ANY RELIGION IS FALSE ?
MUSEUMS JUST PRESENT EVIDENCE - LACK OF EVIDENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING SOMETHING IS FALSE..
THERE ARE MANY THINGS WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE (FOR EXAMPLE GHOSTS)
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE FALSE.
"no way around it. if the bible is not acceptable in state institutions because of the separation concept then likewise the bible can't be treated as not true by the same separation concept"
THE STATE DOES NOT SAY IT IS NOT TRUE -
"Its simply impossible for the state to censor/prohibit something on a matter of truth without in effect and indeed saying its officialy not true. This is illegal."
YOU REALLY MUST GET A GRIP -
WHERE DO YOU GET THE "CENSOR/PROHIBIT" FROM
IT IS NOT MUSEUMS FAULT THAT CREATIONISM HAS NO EVIDENCE
The creationist museum presents man living along dinosaurs,
There is NO evidence for this - ie. fossils of man found with dinosaurs, but the creationist museum presents it as true.
No doubt creationists would want to present such an exhibit in a museum
So they would be presenting something with no basis as true. (I call this LYING)
"You will in the future need better lawyers then the ones you have now."
sorry fail to see any logic.
Creationism is the one who has failed in its attempt
I would say that it creationism that will need better lawyers.
"If Genesis is illegal because of the constitution then attacking genesis is illegal too.
Thats logic.\"
I do not understand., -
You say something is illegal - so attacking it is illegal ?
SECONDLY NO-ONE says genesis is illegal.
(pedantic point - genesis is a document - a document cannot be illegal - that would be contrary to the first amendment)
Its impossible that state institutions would prohibit truth about origins just because its seen as religious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the state prohibits God/Genesis as a option for origins then its saying either that its officially not true or even if true it can't be taught.
Agree or disagree?
Since its unlikely that the state would prohibit truth then it must be saying the bible is false on origins. So a state opinion on the bible.
In teaching evolution it is making a opinion that evolution is the truth on origins. That is all.
so its teaching the kids etc the bible is not true on origins.
Its interfering with the religion of many in doctrines.
There are doctrines on creation for many in the bible.
The state is teaching to the public the bible is wrong on origins.
Agree or disagree?
This is made clear by the fact that if the state teaches the bible as true its said the state is pushing a religion. Well then its pushing against a religion if it teaches origins without Genesis and in direct opposition to genesis.
You admit the state can't raise one faith above another. Well then nothing can be raised above any faith. The purpose is that the state not use its power to teach some faith is less then others. in teaching evolution it is teaching a faith is less then the truth.
If you can't by law teach God/Genesis is true or a option then you can't teach its not true or a option.
Right now state institutions are teaching God/Genesis is not true despite it being a popular opinion.
This is about the law.
So far I have asked you in the region of 30 questions, with no reply
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow YOU start asking questions
Very presumptuous
As you have declined to answer any of my previous questions then let me re-start with some easy questions
You assert that museums are illegally showing evolution exhibits while not showing creationist exhibits.
Question 1 - Is this a correct summary of your position?
Question 2 - Is creationism/id a religion or a science. ? -
Question 3 - Is the theory of evolution (as proposes by Darwin) a religion or a science ?
Question 4 - Is it illegal for the state to show prejudice towards any religion or group of religious beliefs?
Now 2 more difficult questions.
Question 5 - How many religious beliefs in the USA do NOT require belief in god/creation, (as stated in the bible) ?
Question 6 - How many religious beliefs in the WORLD do NOT require belief in god/creation, (as stated in the bible) ?
sorry 2 more questions
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuestion 8, How many religions in the USA require belief in god(or any other name for a creator/suprement entity), but DO NOT require the literal belief in creation (as stated in the bible)
Question 8, How many religions in the WORLD require belief in god(or any other name for a creator/supreme entity), but DO NOT require the literal belief in creation (as stated in the bible)
One last question,( until I get some answers)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuestion 10, How many religions in the USA SPECIFICALLY require belief in god (or any other name for a creator/suprement entity), AND require the literal belief in creation (as stated in the bible)
To believe in Evolution is to deny only a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis. Yes, it is unavoidable to teach some branches of science (geology, paleonotology, biology, anthropology, astronomy) and not come into conflict with literal Biblical interpretations. That's what got Galileo in trouble.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, we must teach science. To deny a scientific education to our children because of conflicts with literal Biblical interpretations would be ludicrus and would have the United States backsliding in education and technology worse than we already are.
So science educators have a duty to teach what scientists have learned, and must accept that the Bible is not to be taken strictly in a literal sense. If you stamp out science because it conflicts with a literal interpretation of scripture, you are sending us toward another dark age.
Faultline
Robert Byers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Since its unlikely that the state would prohibit truth then it must be saying the bible is false on origins. So a state opinion on the bible."
Very good logic
The state does not prohibit truth.
Therefore if is does not promote a subject then it must believe it is false
Therefore it has an opinion on the subject
Bet you majored in creationist science.
Faultline
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour right on many points.
its silly to ban issues of origins because they go against religion. Likewise its silly to ban origin issues with religious backing.
Yet the law is being used to ban one side and not the other despite being a neutral law.
It should also be seen that the ideas on origin from God/Genesis is only a coincedence to be religious.
They are in the end opinions of the people of the truth of origins.
Freedom of thought, speech etc is the way to go.
Laughing gravy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe logis great.
If the state prohibits a subject and teaches the opposite to it then it has a opinion.
Logic.
It all comes down to the equation from the law.
If God/Genesis is illegal as a option , in schools, museums, then either its because its not true as a state opinion or even if true it can't be taught. An absurdity of reality.
Teaching evolution is teaching the bible is false on origins.
This is illegal by the same reasoning that presently leads to the banning of the bible.
the law is the law.
Yet in fact its a made up law from the 60's and can be shown easily to be silly.
"The logis great.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the state prohibits a subject and teaches the opposite to it then it has a opinion.
Logic."
Except for 3 things
1) the state doesn't prohibit
2) the state doesn't teach
3) the state does not, CANNOT, have an opinion as the truth/not truth of a RELIGION.
1 The Law has already decided that evolution is a science - The state can teach sciences
2 The law has already decided that creationism/id is a religion. - The state cannot teach A (that is 1 or a group) religion in preference to any other. IT CAN however be taught as part of a religious studies course.
"If God/Genesis is illegal as a option , in schools, museums, then either its because its not true as a state opinion or even if true it can't be taught. An absurdity of reality."
Now you ARE being stupid.
"even if true it cant be taught"
Presumptuous.
You missed out a very important "or" here
"even if true or not true it cant be taught"
You have just got your head stuck in the sand and are not listening.
It is illegal to teach BECAUSE IT IS A RELIGIOUS BELIEF, NOT BECAUSE IT IS TRUE OR NOT
"An absurdity of reality"
What might that be.
IF you are presuming god/genesis to be true (in an absolute sense) then I think there are many religious beliefs that would disagree with you.
"Teaching evolution is teaching the bible is false on origins."
You are still not listening.
Please put your brain in receive mode.
"This is illegal by the same reasoning that presently leads to the banning of the bible.
the law is the law."
"banning of the bible", The bible is not banned.
"Yet in fact its a made up law from the 60's and can be shown easily to be silly"
Which made up law might that be.
Laws can be made to uphold the constitution.
Laws CANNOT be made the contravene the constitution
If you wish to say the constitution is silly then I think you are living in the wrong country.
"Freedom of thought, speech etc is the way to go."
I do not know which planet you live on
Freedom of thought and speech are already here
Robert Byers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBefore continuing please put your brain in receive mode
Done that ?
good now we can continue
"Yet the law is being used to ban one side and not the other despite being a neutral law."
Evolution is not the other side of god/creation.
1 is a religion, the other is science
There are many religions that DO NOT believe in god/genesis. So there are many more than 1 beliefs as to how the universe or life came to exist.
Have you received this?
Robert,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe I should make my point a little more crystal. I subtly misspoke when I suggested that it is absurd to ban the teaching of science because of conflicts with faith. More accurately, the issue is that when it comes to science class, the schools must teach the scientific knowledge that is supported by evidence and must NOT teach the evidence that is only supported by faith. There are very good reasons for this which have already been put forth.
Faith is the domain of the private sector and organized (or unorganized, for that matter) religion. Come up with some scientific evidence and we'll talk about introducing it into schools once it has been published and peer-reviewed by others who can agree on the accuracy of the evidence and the support of the conclusions.
Now, go get some!
Faultline
Laughing gravy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am Canadian. Yet understand the law here.
We have come down to the law.
the law says, the constitution as twisted, that neither state or church can interfere with the other.
Therefore the state can not teach God/Genesis because it would be endorsing religion.
So I say if it refuses to teach creationism but still teaches about origins then it is making a statement that creationism and so the bible is false in its doctrines.
so the state is interferng with religion.
If evolution is taught then the state is again saying religion is false on some doctrines.
so again it breaks the law.
Simple logic.
If you can't say the bible is true on origins as a option then you can't dismiss it as not true on same.
Thats separation between the two parties.
Right now its just separation of one party from the other.
Further one can ask whether the bible could be taught on origins even if it was proven true? The present law surely is saying even if true the bible could not be taught on origins.
An absurdity.
Maybe you didn't listen. The Theory of Evolution only interferes with a literal interpretation of scripture. Teaching it does not mean you must automatically be an atheist or non-Christian. Many Christians believe in both.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake a look at the Establishment Clause and the Lemon Test. You'll be enlightened.
Faultline
Robert Byers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Therefore the state can not teach God/Genesis because it would be endorsing religion."
Wrong
belief in god/genesis is not religion, it is A religion , or more correctly belongs to 1 religious group
There are several other religions/religious groups, that do not believe it
The state cannot give preferential treatment to the 1 religion/religious group by teaching or endorsing it
"So I say if it refuses to teach creationism but still teaches about origins then it is making a statement that creationism and so the bible is false in its doctrines."
I say this is rubbish
"so the state is interferng with religion."
and this
"If evolution is taught then the state is again saying religion is false on some doctrines.
so again it breaks the law.
Simple logic,"
No you've based your conclusion on faulty premises, so the conclusion is illogical
.
"If you can't say the bible is true on origins as a option then you can't dismiss it as not true on same."
I could not care less what the bible says, but no-one is dismissing it as not true.
"Thats separation between the two parties."
What ?
"Right now its just separation of one party from the other."
No its the prevention of the state showing preference to 1 religious belief.
"Further one can ask whether the bible could be taught on origins even if it was proven true? The present law surely is saying even if true the bible could not be taught on origins."
No IF (a big IF) you could scientifically prove that it were true then it would cease to be a religion and would become a science, and then could be taught as a science..
IF you could prove it to be true then it would also become the accepted scientific theory and would displace evolution (by natural selection) , the big bang theory, and several other theories.
Robert,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe state mandates that children be taught science in science class, and science alone. It cannot allow the teaching of religion by the constitution. So get off this awfully fallacious kick of yours that "because the government don't teach Creationism that means they are calling it false" blah blah blah. They call it false science because it is and that has nothing to do with choosing a religion. It only says that Creationism lack science, so therefore it won't be taught in science class. Duh!
We teach science in science class. In order include Creationism in science class, you'll have to provide evidence to support their claims. Creationists have failed to produce any science that can be taught in public schools because there is no science in Creationism or Intelligent Design or Specified Complexity or any of these other fakes.
Faultline
In case you didn't hear, SCIENCE is what is taught in science class in public schools in America.
We make progress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour last comment is wrong.
The law here is saying no Genesis. its religion.
It wouldn't matter if it was scientific. If its religion then it still must be banned.
Bingo.
Therefore the state either is saying God/Genesis must be banned even if shown true or its saying its not true .
The former would be a absurdity and the latter a intrusive opinion.
Yes there can be no preference of one faith. Yet this means also no faith is to be preferenced over. Or opposed or said to be false.
Teaching evolution does just this.
its teaching the bible on some doctrines is wrong.
The state is therefore interfering in religious doctrines accuracy in state institutions.
Robert, the point sails right by you. The law allows science to be taught, and does not allow religion to be taught. The two concepts, science and religion, are NOT directly comparable with one another. They have different standards for proof and evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience and religion are also NOT mutually exclusive UNLESS your only interpretation of the Bible is that it must be taken literally. In the eyes of many Christians, there is no conflict between religion and Evolution. So the law permits Evolution for teaching because it is based on well-understood scientific principles and evidence, and it does not allow religion to be taught in schools because it is religion. The law can do this WITHOUT declaring that religion is wrong or false. In doing so, the law is NOT making a preference of one religion or another, it is simply removing ALL religions from classroom teaching and that is fair.
Let preachers preach and let science teachers teach science.
Robert Byers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We make progress."
No we dont
You still confuse science and religion.
"Your last comment is wrong."
No it isnt - You proposed a hypothesis "if you could PROVE god/genesis"
Once you PROVE it scientifically then it becomes a science not a religion.
"The law here is saying no Genesis. its religion."
Course it does, because at this moment there isnt any scientific proof of god/genesis.
"It wouldn't matter if it was scientific.If its religion then it still must be banned."
Yes it does matter, It cant be both a religion AND a science at the same time.
Should you have scientific proof then it becomes a science and ceases to be a religion.
Then it could be taught as a science.
BINGO
You just repeat yourself in the rest of your post because you dont appear to appreciate the difference between a science and a religion.
I think I have the wind with me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe law indeed forbids religion in schools etc.
It forbids it for a reason.
The reason is the concept of separation of state and church.
Neither is to interfere in the other.
by teaching evolution or forbiding as a option creationism the state is making a opinion that religion on some doctrines is false.
Its teaching the opposite.
t would not forbid a legitimate opinion on origins as this would be a absurd censorship.
No. The state is making a official opinion on the bible.
If the state is teaching the bible is false then its breaking the law.
The law is simply about the idea that a government should not be pushing for or against particulars faiths. Simple.
In teaching evolution/banning the bible its doing that clearly.
The law is simply about religion not interfering in state institutions and workings.
However in origin subjects this can't be avoided.
so either there is equal time or no time for any origin stuff.
Of coarse the latter is silly and of coarse its silly to ban the God/Genesis as options for origin conclusions in schools etc.
Its a common opinion.
This is the coming persuasive argument in the land.
Laughing gravy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyour still thinking this is about science.
It isn't.
Its about the law.
The law says no God/Genesis because its religion. In short its saying that even if it was true it still would be illegal as a option for origins.
This is absurd but thats the law. Since the 1960's.
No way around it.
The only way to say that God/Genesis can be illegal in schools etc is to say that a official opinion of the state has been made ithat God/Genesis is false. other ideas are true.
This is the logic here.
Banning one side means its not true or even if true must still be banned.
the latter is not from the constitution written hundreds of years ago by a very Protestant christian people.
Also it would be absurd in institutions of learning.
I can't see where I'm wrong here.
I can see where you are wrong, Robert. The trouble is, you'll never see where you are wrong. The law does not prohibit science in the classroom, it does prohibit religion in the classroom. The prohibition of religion and allowance of science DOES NOT constitute a promotion of any one religion, so the law is constitutional.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore specifically, the Theory of Evolution is only opposed to a literal interpretation of scripture. Get it?
Faultline
If the teachings in the classroom are against religion then under the same law that religion can not be taught there is prohibition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf God/genesis is religion then teaching its false directly or indirectly by teaching something else is true counts as the state teaching against religion.
The state has a opinion on the faith of many. its teaching its false.
Surely by teaching evolution the kids are being taught their faith is wrong on some doctrines.
The state is not neutral on God/genesis.
In fact to teach god/Genesis is your point that it means the state is making a statement about its accuracy.
Well teaching the opposite to it or teaching directly its false is logically the state doing the same thing.
Again i fail to see where my logic is wrong.
The state is to be separated from the church.
This is used to censor one side right now but in fact it should censor both to be separate in truth.
In the end the idea should be for the legislature to decide about the fredom of study.
The state is not everything the state pays for.
I cannot state this any more plainly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe act that is prohibited in a classroom is the promotion of any religious beliefs. This is what the Establishment Clause is about and you clearly have your own definition of it and won't consider the real definition. Look up the Establishment Clause and the Lemon Test and don't just rely on your current understanding because your interpretation of it is flawed in a subtle but crucial way.
The prohibition of religious teaching in a classroom is NOT the same as promoting a religion. It is the promotion of religious beliefs that is prohibited. Teaching Evolution is NOT the same as teaching a religious belief, it is teaching science. The courts have been over this bone of contention again and again and have come to the same conclusion.
Teaching Evolution is NOT the same as teaching a religious belief, it is teaching science.
If atheism could be a public school subject, it would not be prohibited because atheism is defined as a lack of any religious belief. So therefore, teaching atheism is NOT teaching a religious belief. It is the same with Evolution. Teaching Evolution is not teaching a religion and is not prohibited.
Your opinion may be otherwise, but that is just your opinion and logic has nothing to do with it. You have to gain a better understanding of the Establishment Clause and why it prohibits the promotion of religion in classrooms and why it allows the teaching of science.
Faultline
Faultline
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand very well what the intent and claims of the establishment clause are in the 1789's and today.
Its simple. its clear.
Its not a intent to prohibit religion in state things.
Its a intent to separate the state and church from each other.
Yes there is a intent not to teach a religion over others or al all.
Yet likewise a religion is not to be taught by the state to be false.
teaching evolution or denying creationism is doing just that clearly.
Never did anyone mean to prohibit religion because they wanted religion prohibited. Nonsense.
The purpose was simply not to use the state to endorse or promote faiths of this or that group.
yet likewise the state was not to endorse or promote the falseness of any one faith. Surely.
The state is not to be in the business of talking about the accuracy of faiths.
yet origins touches on this and this law is used to censor some faiths ideas while attacking them.
How can it be got around.
If there is a separtion between state/church that means the state can't promote a religion THEN it can't promote against it.
Separation is separation.
The state indeed should not promote religion or faiths. Good idea. In fact its a old idea in America.
It should not promote one over the other or one under the other.
Don't raise or lower any faith with the power of the state.
Make no establishment about religion.
Including of coarse no establishment about any religion being false.
in teaching evolution the state is making a opinion that Genesis is false. In denying Genesis equal time it doubly is saying this since one would not prohibit a option for the truth in a education etc system.
If by law you can't teach God/Genesis then either its because the state is saying its not true officialy, and so a interference, OR true or not the state can't teach it.
Why? cause its about religion.
So if it talks about issues that the religion deals with and makes contrary conclusions to the religion tHEN its saying its not true.
The state can not say God/Genesis is not true if it can't say it is true.
An opinion on creationism is an opinion.
Again i can't see where my logic fails here.
Somebody is very wrong here.
Like I said Robert, you have a subtle but crucial misunderstanding of the Establishment Clause. Learn more about it. You think it is simple and works two ways. One, that state funded schools cannot teach religion. Two, that state funded schools cannot teach that religion is false.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWRONG!
You are assuming part two in order to make your argument. There is nothing in the Establishment Clause nor any of the body of legal precedent around it that prohibits public schools from teaching that religion is false. Maybe that is the way you want it to be or think it should be, but you're operating from a misunderstanding and that is what makes your argument fail.
Like I said, don't think you have it right just because you are sure you understand it already. Look it up. Look up the Establishment Clause and look up the Lemon Test. Really read the details of the Establishment Clause and how it has been defined and interpreted over the years. Then, if you think that teaching Evolution is still a violation of the Establishment Clause, tell me how the Lemon Test applies to the teaching of Evolution. Don't come back here without it.
Faultline
robert byers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Once more unto the breach"
"The state can not say god/genesis is not true if it can't say it is true."
This is correct
(or not correct, whichever you prefer)
In fact purporting god/genesis as truth is presenting a lie, as you have no foundation on which you can say it is truth.
Therefore purporting it as truth is a lie.
robert byers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So if it talks about issues that the religion deals with and makes contrary conclusions to the religion tHEN its saying its not true. .
......................
Again i can't see where my logic fails here"
Then let me point out your failure
1) One body draws a conclusion on a subject = truth. , but it is only its conclusion.
2) Another body reaches another conclusion on another subject = false, but again its only its conclusion
3) Neither body expresses any opinion regarding the subect of the other body.
Neither conclusion is absolute as they are only the opinions.
Each conclusion may be "true" (i.e. correct) according to the criteria of each body,and vise versa each may be "false" (i.e. incorrect). But in absolute terms each conclusion may be "false" , i.e. the absolutely "correct" conclusion may the opposite of that actually expressed by the body.
Since neither body has expressed any opinion regarding the subject of the other body, then neither has expressed any opinion of the absolute, or relative, "truth" or "falsity" of the other.
Hope this makes it clear (as mud)
LG, you lost me my friend. I took Logic in college and I have no idea what you're getting at. Got the Crib Notes version?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaultline
Sorry I lost myself but I hit the submit key in error.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbut it all boils down to
"truth is in the eye of the beholder"
and that one person's "truth" may, in the absolute, be a lie.
I think I lost Robert. Maybe he gave up. Anyway, I'll wait a day or two more and give the Lemon Test to his notion and see what happens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have too much work to do. Like a final paper to write for class. I chose the Evolution/Creation debate and the negative effects that arrive when the debate is brought to the classroom. I also intend to show that it is improper to circumvent the wrangling and thrust Creationism before school children (public or private) by ranking Creationism suddenly equal to Evolution in scientific status when Creationism hasn't been through the rigors to become a Theory.
Faultline
Faultline
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are still reading
1 thing that may help.
Science is not a democracy. That is , there isn't a debate, vote, whatever that decides what is/is not a science.
What is/is not a science is determined by the methodology behind the collecting of data/evidence and the analysis of the data/evidence , then the peer review.
It is this that is lacking in creationism/id and WHY it cannot be considered a science, (for the foreseeable future)
Not so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe state is teaching a conclusion/opinion about certain points in origin issues.
They are teaching something is true which by definition attacks the religious ideas of many in the country.
When religion comes for rebuttal they say NO you can't say anything in state controlled things because of the separation concept. The state can't in any way support religious ideas.
The state likewise can't oppose religious ideas. One might say the state is to be neutral.
Then BANG the state teaches evolution which is saying the bible is wrong. the bible comes for rebuttal and told the state can't teach it because of the law.
the state can't teach the bible as a option of truth but it can teach the bible is not true by teaching a contrary thing.
Therefore the conclusion can only be that the present situation is illegal.
If you are prohibited from teaching Genesis as true then you can't teach it as not true. By rejecting as true and teaching evolution.
No lemons as we are entry level here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI insist that the state cannot teach religion is false. This would mean the state has a opinion on religion and is pushing it with its power. the state is not to interfere with church things. there is the saying of separation of church and state.
This idea is SO used to stop the church from influence with the state.
God/Genesis is prohibited from state institutions , not because its officially false, because the state cannot endorse any religion.
Yet then it touches on themes that religion touches on.
The state teaches a opinion that is contrary to religion, for many, and when we come for rebuttal they wave a law in our face.
The law that the state can make no conclusions or establishment on religion.
The state can't teach the bible as true on origins.
AMEN.
Yet the law is applied in only one direction.
The state by denying creationism and by teaching evolution is making a conclusion/establishment of religion.
it is saying officially that this or that religion is false.
If teaching god/Genesis as a option for truth on origins COUNTS as a state opinion then teaching God/Genesis is false is also a STATE opinion
In short. If the state is saying the doctrines of faith, for many, are false then it is making a establishment of religion.
Remember the establishent clause was put i to not allow competition of different faiths. No faith to be over another by state sanction. Yet this means no faith to be under any other.
This means the state can't sanction any faith as false.
yet teaching evolution or denying creationism is doing just that.
why is my reasoning wrong???
robert byers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I insist that the state cannot teach religion is false"
You can insist as much as you like it doesn't make your statement correct
- ambertooth has already stated AND GIVEN REASONS why you are wrong, but you dont listen
You state the bible is true
No it isn't - it is YOUR truth - so in fact you want the state to teach a lie
why is my reasoning wrong???
1) because you dont listen when corrected
2) Because evolution is a science not a religion, creationism is a religion not a science.
"The state likewise can't oppose religious ideas. One might say the state is to be neutral."
Wrong - ambertooth has already corrected your ignorance of the constitution, but you dont listen.
The Lemon Test: Since Robert Breyers is uninterested in looking it up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis 1971 Supereme Court precedent is a way of determining if any legislative statute violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
It has three parts. Any one part that fails the test indicates a violation of the Establishment Clause.
1. The statute or government action must have a secular legislative purpose.
* Teaching Evolution passes this test because the purpose of teaching Evolution is to teach science, which most certainly a secular (meaning separate from religion) purpose.
2. The statute or governments action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion
* Teaching Evolution does not have inhibiting religion as a primary purpose. At worst, it is a side effect IF your entire religion is built around a strictly literal interpretation of scripture. Biblical literalists are a relatively small portion of Christians. I need to dig up some figures to be sure, though.
3. The statute or government action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
* I fail to see how teaching Evolution can be considered excessive government entanglement with religion. If Genesis were the only book in the Bible, and if the entire religion was centered around the events in Genesis, then maybe it would come close. Is your religion limited to Genesis?
That's the Lemon Test. Got anything to say?
Faultline
Who is ambertooth?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyways if your talking make your own case.
Its irrelevant what is religion or science or isn't. its about truth and the search for it by honest free enquiry including criticisms of conclusions.
If the state prohibits certain opinions about certain subjects then freedom demands WHY?
If the claim is that certain opinions are illegal because expressing them means the state is sponcering them , which is illegal, then teaching against these religious ideas is equally the state sponcering an opinion on religion.
The state is teaching the falsness of that religion on certain matters.
This is not separation of state from church. its the state interfering with church. Thats what is said if the state allows some church stuff.
The state is literally giving a opinion on church matters.
This is not separation. surely.
If the state cannot allow the God/genesis as a option for origins then on the same law it cannot teach it as not a option for truth on origins.
This is the law.
However its beside the point that origin ideas are legal and unrelated to anything in the constitution.
Faultline.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know about the lemon test thing.
Its beside the point.
Anyways all you wrote fits fine with why evolution being taught breaks the separation concept.
Its a attempt to teach the bible is untrue with the expectation it will be seen as untrue. This is the purpose.
Not secular but a attack upon religion.
Otherwise creationism coulds say its just a secular attempt to teach the truth on origins.
Sorry I should have said faultline not ambertooth
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe constitution/supreme court said you cannot teach A religion, but you can teach a science
IF you want to argue against this I suggest you approach the supreme court
Ths supreme court has decided that evolution (the constituent parts) are science
The supreme court has decided that creationism/id is a religion
Therefore you can teach evolution , but you cannot teach creationism/id
So it is relevent what whether a subject is a science or a religion
I dont know how many times you have been told but you still do not listen
The state does not "teach" that anything is false. It presents unreligious scientific evidence.
The fact that it does not agree with YOUR religion is largely irrelevent.
Because they are only YOUR beliefs, You have NO evidence that they have ANY basis as "truth" , just that YOU believe them
The state is not interfering in whether you believe them or not.
The state is not teaching evolution as "truth" it is just presenting the scientific evidence that supports it
No-one says you MUST believe the evidence, or evolution itself. YOU believe what you like.,
Several time you refer to what is "law" however YOUR interpretation does not agree with the supreme court's.
"However its beside the point that origin ideas are legal and unrelated to anything in the constitution"
What ?
Some "ideas" as to origin are scientific, some are religious, so both are "related" to the constitution
"I know about the lemon test thing.
Its beside the point. "
Stupid statement - IT IS the point
As faultline said
"This 1971 Supereme Court precedent is a way of determining if any legislative statute violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."
Robert Byers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"its about truth and the search for it by honest free enquiry "
Which truth are you talking about
I'll bet EVERY follower of a religious faith believes that their faith is the "truth"
I'll bet you do not enquire into other beliefs in YOUR enquiry after "truth"
Science searches for truth by collecting and evaluating EVIDENCE
It decides the BEST theory on the basis of this evidence.
A THEORY does not mean that it is the "truth", just that it is the BEST explanation of the data, based on the EVIDENCE available
BUT science continues its search for even better theories.
I'll bet you dont.
Robert Breyers, in what way is the PRIMARY purpose of teaching Evolution to inhibit a religion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo way. The primary purpose of teaching Evolution is to teach science. The Lemon Test is broken if Evolution's PRIMARY purpose is to inhibit religion.
It ain't.
If you disagree, tell me in what way. Do you have any reasonable argument that describes how the PRIMARY purpose (not a side-effect or even a secondary purpose) of Evolution is to inhibit religion?
Get busy. The rest of your post was just the same garbage you keep repeating. Not worth discussing again.
The argument I'm making is that the constitution did not in any way say that God/genesis can not be taught but it can be taught as wrong. Teaching that certain religious doctrines are wrong is breaking any law that touches on state/church. separation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTeaching evolution is directly teaching known doctrines of religion are false. Its prohibited to teach they are true.
its a two way street and not the one way you try to make it out as.
Thats my excellent case.
A law is being used to censor something the law says there can be no opinion on. Censoring is a opinion when the subject deals with conclusions.
It can't logically work to say the law is neutral about religion and then say the religious ideas are not allowed as truth on origins and then teach conclusively the opposite to those religious ideas is true.
If the state can't endorse religion then it can't endorse the falseness of religion. This is separation. Your idea ain't.
Thats the cry of those who censor God/genesis in schools etc.
Separation of church/state.
If the claim to prohibit God/genesis is that teaching these things as a option for origins has a primary purpose to teach religion then the opposite is true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe primary purpose in teaching evolution ends up teaching religion is false.
Anyways this lemon test is poor law.
Even the lemon test is proof the courts are forced to admit that teaching evolution does teach some christian doctrines are false.
So they try to get around this why still prohibiting the teaching of the christian doctrines.
The lemon test is proof of what I've been saying here.
Teaching evolution is teaching the opposite is not true.
The courts are dumb wrong about this lemon thing as they are about the whole subject.
If the law is that the state can't teach creationism as a option because its religious then it can't teach the contrary or anything thing about origins since this means logically its making a opinion on religions credibility on certain matters.
Simple.
You can't say there is a law that separates church and state and then use the state to interfere in the church. Then if rebuttal is asked say NO we can't allow church stuff into the state because of the separation concept.
Think harder.
The lemon test is in fact a backtracking of some court decisions that figured out there is a problem with using the separation concept to censor one side of a contention.
Forget the lemons and deal with the meat of the issue of how laws of church/state are a two way street and not one way.
A dumb error in these things has gone on too long.
It shall fall.
Mr. Lauging Gravy, you have more patience than I but it seems a waste of time to agrue with a complete ignorant moron like Robert Byers who is proud of his ignorance, who clearly has not capacity for critical thinking or analysis, no ability to judge the veracity of evidence, no idea of what a scientific theory entails, nothing. It is frightening. Now we see people like this "debating" health care. God help us (if there is a god).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI nearly forgot - this Robert Byers can't even communicate his muddled thoughts clearly or write beyond a sixth-grade level. Obviously he was home-schooled by a religious idot....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven sadder is that Byers and others like him scare people away from church. I'm a working engineer and a pretty rational guy, but I enjoy attending church every Sunday. I stayed away for a long time because of close minded people like Byers. Well, he doesn't speak for *all* christians. Below is an excellent statement from the catholic church on science and evolution. If you want to try church as a place of quiet reflection, a place to lay aside your worries and just rest for awhile, then don't be scared away by the likes of Byers. He is an anachronism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the Big Bang and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution. "
Dang. After reading the above comments, I thought, "Well, so let's just not put science and creationism in the same museum." And in fact, when I read closer, there already are science museums and creationism museums. So both do exist. Then I looked in the dictionary and Wikipedia on "museums" and found wax museums, war museums, art, and so on. Museums are specialized, so there's no reason not to have BOTH science museums AND creationism museums. Science is definitely different from creationism, so the 2 should probably not be in the same museum. Would that be like putting apples and space ships into the same museum?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThinking about evolution, over the years, I've discussed with a good friend who is a Jehovahs Witness, whether or not God started the idea of evolution or just never believed in it. Then about a year ago, I read one of the Witness publications and discovered that Jehovahs Witnesses now "believe" (if believe is the right word) in micro evolution. It didn't say anything about macro evolution, so I don't know what their doctrine is there.
The law does not require the separation of church and state. The law prohibits the establishment of a religion which means the law forbids having the government from paying any institution for performing any religious function. The two are quite different. Please read the constitution. The law prohibits free exercise of religion. It can not tell you how to run a worship service! We have free literacy classes at the public library!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't it entertaining when a person starts calling another person names like,"STUPID!" during a debate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "caller" is so frustrated that he resorts to the playground mentality. I guess that is a kind of evolution...adult to child.
Why is Creationism so threatening to people?
If you are living like there is no God, you had better be right.
You cannot argue fact or evidence or scientific curiosity with religionists. All we can do is move forward and beyond them; those with a conscience will question their indoctrination, but to engage them in any conversation about their fear-based circular logic is a waste of time and energy. Let us continue to uphold skepticism, critical thought, and reason; let us continue to respect people but continue to challenge their dangerous and limiting belief systems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this