Creationism bill in Alabama
From the NCSE article :
Alabama's House Bill 258 , introduced on January 18, 2018, would, if enacted, allow teachers to present "the theory of creation as presented in the Bible" in any class discussing evolution, "thereby affording students a choice as to which theory to accept." The bill would also ensure that creationist students would not be penalized for answering examination questions in a way reflecting their adherence to creationism, "provided the response is correct according to the instruction received."
From the bill's synopsis :
A student would be permitted credit on course exams if he or she chooses to adhere to the Biblical theory of creation instead of evolution and then answers exam questions according to that system of belief.
Tags
Who is online
286 visitors
Sooooo... Basically, a student could pass a science exam by answering 'God did it' to every question.
Somone needs to educate this supposed member of the legislature about the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision. The FFRF and the ACLU would eat this idiot for lunch if it ever passes.
Creationism is a religious idiocy and does not belong in public schools.
No, but the people supporting this bill are anti-Constitution.
Agreed. It's not even scientific in the least.
Beats the hell out of an educated discussion now doesn't it!
That just raised my opinion of them. World would be in much better shape with more religion haters.
At least with more science and less religion.
Not really. Those who you disdained are protecting all of us, including you, from the tyrannical persecution of Theocratic Authoritarianism.
Fine.........
How about more people that realize that science and religion are not opposed to one another? Science is stuff we can understand and explain, religion for stuff that we can't yet understand.
In other words, use religion to make suff up just so you can have an (usually emotionally appealing) explanation for something you don't yet understand. Sounds intellectually lazy and dishonest.
They'e standing up to the Constitution-hating Christians (which does not include all Christians) who would force their religion on others. That makes them the opposite of spineless.
Not like some Christians whose faith is so weak they have to use the law to prop it up.
Someone is triggered because other religions have equal religious rights.
As to your claim that the ACLU hates Christians,
So you've got a sore ass because the FFRF keeps whipping your butt?
The FFRF and the ACLU are my two annual donations.
Agreed, but look around you, if it weren't for intellectually lazy and dishonest people, religion would not exist. So, give them a distraction (religion) and let them drool and play with it while the adults do the actual work unhindered.
The problem is, they become a distraction and even a hinderence themselves.
Personally and professionally for years? How so?
That's why we are SUPPOSED to have Constitutional safeguards to stop them at that point.
Indeed. But that doesn't stop them from trying.
And succeeding under the current administration.
They probably realized after sending the C&D that the radio station was irrelevant at 5K watt with a 12 song playlist in the middle of gooberstan.
5 kw is 5000 watts
That's the primary issue with my comment? That seems deflective with a side of CoC. Thanks for the chat.
Because that's an actual problem in our lives. /s
The ACLU and the Freedom From RelgionFoundation are separate and they aren't taking your rights away. They are both ending the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in both the free exercise of religion for all people equally as well as the strict separation of church and state. You want only people who agree with you to have religious freedom to believe and worship as you choose. You also want the state at all levels to support and enforce your religious beliefs as law. That isn't going to happen unless you rewrite the Constitution. The younger generation is rejecting your conservative brand of religious belief as well as the support of established religion in general so get used to being equals instead of trying to control the rights that others may enjoy. The US was not founded on Christian belief and it certainly wasn't founded on your draconian interpretation of the Bible. You should put down the David Barton books because he is lying to you.
I can read your personality like a drug store novel.
On the comment board, it has this lead, and no way to see that you are quoting my friend, but I do enjoy when you talk fresh, /s
by the way, am I as easy to read as the literary briefs at the local apothecary
Please excuse my comment, ive been laid up for too damn long and am cleared Monday to get the hell out of home prison getting antsy I may make try for a prison break tonight
How exactly have you dealt with the Freedom From Religion Foundation on a professional basis?
Feel free to cite those cases. The FFRF wins almost all of the cases they take to court.
I'm calling BS on your claims because they are not concerned with private corporations do the fact that they only get involved in issues of the separation of church and state.
Who do you work for?
OSM must be suffering from an excess of the Christian Persecution Complex hormone.
I agree.
Groups like the ACLU and the FFRF do not routinely mail cease and desist orders. The process requires a citizen to file a formal complaint with the courts about a separation of church and state or other constitutional issue and then either group writes a friend of the court (Amicus Curiae) brief and acts as their representation in the legal proceedings. The ACLU do not act as defense attorneys in criminal proceedings for anyone, ever.
Talk about the dumbing down of America.
The problem I have is the inclusion of the Bible. Intelligent Design is indeed a valid theory, whether you are a religious person or not. I for one believe that we have indeed had outside influences throughout our history as a Race, and I'm also one who believes that the likelihood of Life beginning in a Terra-forming attempt by an alien Race is much more likely than a bunch of chemicals and minerals combining by pure happenstance to create lifeforms. Evolution does play a part in our history; there is no denying that. How much it plays is still debatable as so many "links" are missing in the various chains.
Now before some of you go trying to peg me as some religious nutcase because I endorse Intelligent Design, allow me to explain what I think is the likeliest scenario:
An Advanced Race decided this planet was ideally situated for a Terra-forming project. They injected the very basic lifeforms of bacterium to see exactly how they would respond and how they would develop (or maybe they already know and just wanted to get the ball rolling). Somewhere along the way, during a periodic checkup on the progress, a ship crashed with hundreds of Humanoid Aliens aboard. With no way off the planet, they began to integrate themselves into the local ecology and population that had developed. The local population seeing the "miracles" that this Advance Race could perform with their Alien Technologies deemed them to be "gods" and began worshiping them. The Aliens, whom if they look anything like our current drawings of Greys and Blues, were probably physically weak and used the superstitions to their advantage to protect themselves and rule over the barbaric, stronger, and bigger population. At some point, this Alien Race died off, or were possibly rescued, leaving behind only legends which gave rise to our current religions and those gone by in the past. It is also possible that they continue to visit throughout our history in order to guide our development along a prechosen path for their own reasons.
Now if everyone will put aside there preconceived notions of what "theory" is correct, they would have to admit that this "theory" makes the most sense of all. It incorporates ALL sides of the debate, and it jives with ALL the evidence we have found to date regarding the development of the Human Race and the rise of Civilization. Now if this were the "theory" being taught alongside of the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Creationism, it would bridge the gaps between the two.
I don't believe the Creationism Theory should not be taught as it is a form of Intelligent Design and lets face it, IF there is indeed an older, more advanced Race capable of manipulating matter at the molecular level--which we as an infant Race have already begun to do, it is indeed possible that with the right technological advantages, it could create a world that could appear to be much older and more complex in its history than it really is.
The complete lack of supporting evidence means that no, ID is not a valid theory, or even a theory at all, when we're discussing science.
I have a book series that might interest you. It's called "Origins" and the author is Mark Henriksen. His books are a little like your theory.
Really? Since when and based on what? The National Academy of Sciences and most credible scientists certainly do not consider ID to be a valid theory, nor a theory to begin with. ID is nothing more than repackaged creationism.
I think that was a plot to one episode of Star Trek: TNG.
Evolution pretty much plays everything to our development as a species. There's no denying that.
See second statement. Your scenario is also nothing more than mere conjecture, with nothing to back it up.
Evolution is correct. It has the most supporting empirical evidence.
It's not even a theory. At best, it's a hypothesis.
Creationism is not a theory either.
What you're trying to describe is panspermia (as opposed to abiogenesis) as the origin of life on this planet. But that is separate from evolution. And it is certainly neither creationism or ID.
I think your reply is meant for Citizen Kane.
"Prometheus" used this plot.
I was thinking of the TNG episode, "The Chase" (season 6, ep. 20).
It is a fine hypothesis, but it fails miserably as a scientific theory. ID is really nothing more than 'life is too complex to have evolved without a designer'. Yet one can take something as complex (and amazing) as the eye and explain how (through evolution) a simple dot capable of detecting the frequency of visible light gives survival advantage to its host. The more likely a host is to survive, the more likely it will reproduce and pass its genes. Single dot to multiple dot to focusing through primitive lenses through color detection, etc. suggest a very plausible path to the modern eye. Especially the human eye where we see complexity and great functionality but with rather substantial design flaws.
Also, we still have the inescapable question: if complexity requires a designer then who designed the designer? ID is 'God did it' wrapped up in debunked scientifically expressed confusion.
Exogenesis, panspermia, etc. are certainly valid possibilities. But you should not 'believe' this. Wait for supporting evidence - belief sans evidence forges a religion. But back to ID, who designed the aliens?
Missing links?? Recognize that someone can always claim there are missing links. Evolution is a continuous process. That is, species are always evolving. For most complex organisms it takes thousands of years to see differences (natural evolution). Out of all the creatures who have lived only a tiny fraction leave behind evidence as most are completely repurposed by the environment. The missing link claim is typically used by those who stubbornly hold to creationism or have not spent sufficient time researching evolutionary science.
Good thing for you to do at this point.
Who designed the advanced race [ species ]? One should not promote ID without answering the challenge it raises. It says complexity requires a designer yet fails to address the logical contradiction that the sentient designer is more complex than that it designed. The problem does not exist if one recognizes the distinct possibility that complexity can emerge from the very substance of existence itself. No need for a sentient designer - just time, permutations and natural selection.
Nope. Who designed the advanced species? haunts your 'theory'. Answer that question with a 'theory' and you may have something interesting here.
"Voyager" also used this plot, in the episode "Tattoo".
Cretinism is almost as valid as the "theory" that the disc of the world rests on the backs of elephants which stand on a giant tortoise.
Horton hears a who.
I tend to think that life could have come from elsewhere but more from an asteroid or some other celestial body hitting the earth and bringing with it the beginnings of life.
Then again I heard a theory that we all came from Mars. Earth was taken over as Mars was in it's death throws.
But it lacks supporting evidence. Everything offered up as evidence by the ID folks (almost always some form of irreducible complexity) has been shot down.
But then where did the alien race come from? Another alien race who also had to come from another, and another, and another? Eventually life will need a simple, non-living chemical point of origin.
Why jump through all of those hoops? All life on Earth is made of chemical elements found right here on Earth. All of the components are present. There's no reason to assume life on Earth just had to start elsewhere. Panspermia is possible, of course, but not necessary.
Also, per the hypothesis you describe, if an advanced alien race were present on Earth recently enough to exist as legend in human memory (from tens to a couple hundred thousand years ago), then there would be physical remains of their civilization -- advanced metallurgy, complex tools, electronics, power sources and distribution networks, buildings, consumer goods of some kind, etc. It wouldn't have been that long ago. Time wouldn't have erased it.
I'd say it has the only supporting evidence.
The biggest and most important logical flaw with ID.
A Cuchi Moya... or however it's spelled.
I just watched that a few weeks ago.
I guess he wasn't so far from the bones of his ancestors, after all.
This is true. Even with that, it's amazing there are those that still refuse to accept the validity of evolution. But religious superstition with no evidence whatsoever is somehow valid and acceptable, no questions asked.
It's astonishing, isn't it? I wonder if it doesn't have something to do with a kind of tribalism, i.e., maintaining one's place and/or life routine in their immediate social/familial/communal surroundings, a go along with it and don't rock the boat sort of thing. Religious beliefs do tend to cluster geographically in social/familial groupings.
I wonder how many people are simply afraid of being ostracized and cast out of their 'tribe' (friends, family, community, etc.) and so profess/affirm beliefs they might not truly have.
I suspect quite a few theists are actually agnostic theists (or even agnostic atheists) who stay 'in the closet' because the pros of staying silent (pretending to be religious) far overshadow the social cons of honest disclosure. I have family members (extended) who clearly no longer accept the claims of their religion.
I remember reading an article a few years back about priests who anonymously admitted not actually believing in their religions (they had basically become closet atheists), but they continued to play along and do their thing because it was such a big and important part of the local social fabric.
I'm sure there's a social component, as well as am emotional one.
Don't doubt that a bit.
I'm a flamboyant agnostic even profess to be an atheist at times, but my husband's friends won't have it. They won't leave me alone about it.
One exchange I had with one of them:
"You don't believe in angels? God's an angel!"
At that point I decided that I needed more alcohol. Apparently these god-fearing people I hang out with haven't even read their own bibles. They certainly don't understand the concepts of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotent
I have found (just my own experiences living my life among Christians) that most people walk around with very simplistic views regarding God. Ultimately it is something like this:
Armed with this, a person has all one needs to remain faithful. Just keep going to church and staying steadfast to your faith (resist Satan) and you will go to Heaven. It will all work out. Don't give anything else a second thought.
That's why I could never get down with the simplistic type churches. I was drawn to the Catholic church because it really did teach you to question. That's what I got out of it anyway. Sure, we discussed the mysteries, but those were to help you meditate and pray not just accept and move on.
It's ironic that the RCC seems to be more intellectual than many Protestant churches when the reason the Protestants broke off from the RCC was so they could read the bible for themselves and interpret it for themselves. But then they became too organized and self-interpretation became verboten.
power and money. These played a large role, also.
Yes, the RCC was corrupt (still is in many ways) but so are Protestant churches. Those televangelists are the worst of the lot but I've seen corruption in small churches
Bottom line -religion is about corruption - power and money. The flavor really doesn't matter. None of it does a body good if the premise is that you are a flawed creature that requires a human sacrifice to be cleansed.
Intelligent Design is not a theory.
Correct - it's just meaningless conjecture rooted in Bronze-age superstition, and since it has no evidence whatsoever to support it and no tested hypotheses (or even a means by which to test or falsify a hypothesis), it's most definitely not a theory. Nor does Cretinism have any of the explanatory and predictive power of an actual scientific theory.
There's even a support group called "The Clergy Project " for clerics who misplaced their superstitions.
WoW! I usually feel like Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein must have felt back in their days when I hang around the blogosphere--namely an intelligent person surrounded by idiots--skirting the CoC [ph] First off, I have made no claims that ID is a scientific theory, just a plain old fashioned theory (or a hypothesis<--didn't use the word because skirting the CoC [ph] unproven and untested but an explanation that fits the facts we do know. Secondly, I purposely linked not only Evolution, but Civilization when speaking of ID. Why? Because both present possible evidence of Alien influence in our history. Start with the odds of bacterium spontaneously developing on a lifeless world, and continue on through pyramids scattered around the globe in precise alignment on a grid between peoples who had never met. Waaay too many examples to list, but try doing some research Flat-Earther's.
Admitting to the possibility of ID is NOT an admission or endorsement of "God" in the Biblical sense at all. Some here feel that any attempt to embrace ID is a veiled attempt to promote theology. Hardly. It is viewing of facts from multiple sources and drawing a conclusion that meets the criteria. These are the idiots that remind me of the other idiots who say that supporting Gay Rights must mean I'm Gay. No, it means I can understand and relate without being there. I don't have to be Gay to know that Rights for Gay's is the right thing to do, nor do I have to believe in a Biblical God to embrace Intelligent Design...I just have to admit that I don't know and that the proposal (ID) does make sense.
So instead of wasting my time with your insults and digs, try opening your minds, maybe even watch a little Discovery Channel or History Channel (skirting the CoC [ph] ), and maybe...just maybe, you will learn NOT to ass-u-me...
Explain this then: if complexity necessitates a designer then why does the (even more complex) designer not require a designer?
How sensible is an hypothesis that yields an infinite regress of designers designing designers?
But you're the one who made a completely unsubstantiated claim. Your whole post basically boiled down to this:
Combined with this:
So, not only did you ignore the problem of the origin of the alien race (no abiogenesis events allowed per your position), but you used them to explain the easier part of the process. It is a much bigger deal to go from simple single-celled prokaryotic bacteria to very complex multi-cellular eukaryotic animals like mammals (including us) than it is to go from non-living organic chemistry to simple prokaryotic bacteria.
Simple bacterial life appears in the geologic record fairly early on, from 250 to 500 million years after the planet formed, but then it took over 2 billion years for eukaryotes to appear, another half billion for multicellular life to appear, and then another full billion for the Cambrian explosion to occur. So simple life seems to have happened easily and quickly, but about 3.75 of life's ~4.25 billion year history had to pass before we got to a point where the kinds of animals we're familiar with today first start to appear (500 million years ago).
Do you see what I mean? You invoked aliens to explain the easier part for some reason.
Now you're comparing yourself to Galileo, Darwin and Einstein, and calling everyone else idiots? Good grief.
By the way, the Discovery Channel and the History channel haven't been good sources of information for years now, and 'Ancient Aliens' is not a documentary series.
Hypothesis and theory do not mean the same thing. Evolution is a scientific theory. ID is not. They're not even on the same playing field.
That's merely an assumption, with no supporting evidence or facts. Until then, then idea of alien influence (while not completely implausible) is within the realm of science fiction.
We know how abiogenesis led to the development of life on this planet. Now add a few billion years and you have people. It's not a difficult concept.
You've been watching too much Ancient Aliens or whatever on the History Channel.
Flat Earther's are just plain nuts. Nothing they say is worthy of any serious consideration.
ID originated as a religious alternative to Creationism in an attempt to make creationism sound more scientific.
Embracing ID is just embracing willful ignorance and rejecting sound science.
Strawman argument.
Most people who do embrace ID tend to be religious. From a scientific standpoint, ID makes absolutely no sense and is blown out of the water by evolution.
Not even a little.
We're open minded to sound science and evidence. Not pseudoreligious nonsense or conspiracy theories. Next you're going to be telling us ghosts are real because of Ghost Hunters.
Which is really sad, because they used to have some good, educational shows. Then they turned to the reality TV nonsense and drama and lost all credibility in the process.
Ever atop to think it is quite possible that we are actually at the very bottom of the scale of Evolution? What would be our our form of life in say a billion years as a Race? Hardly what it is now--limited by needs such as food, water, and air to survive. Evolution Theory alone suggests that we will move beyond those needs as we advance in development as a species.
Have you ever gone camping? I don't mean in some 5th wheel trailer or in an RV, I mean honest to god roughing it where you only carried in nothing but what you needed to and hiked deep into the woods surviving off the land? Probably not simply because to most people, that idea of "roughing it is too extreme, but for some of us, it is actually relaxing and an enjoyable change of pace from our daily lives full of technology. Why do I ask that?
I'm going to weave you a wondrous tale, and in the process, we'll see if it makes any sense to you.
Long ago, not billions, not trillions, but back before the beginning of time itself, there existed a Master Race. This Race was not a corporeal body based Race, but one which exists in the one form that cannot be changed or affected by time or distance. This Race exists as a pure form of energy. As such, they can manipulate matter simply by thinking it; designing their own personal playgrounds with their minds. Unlimited by a physical form, their minds know no bounds. They are Omniscient, and Omnipotent, having always been here, and un-aging and unlimited by our rules of the physical Universe, able to exist on any plane, traverse any distance--not instantly, because they are not limited by a body, they are already "there". They are actually everywhere at the same time. Now this Race knows that knowledge is gained through experience, and the only way to gain experience is through action. It chooses to become a corporeal life form in order to learn. It actually dumbs itself down by becoming a lesser form of existence in order to experience for itself the feel of physical Life. To such a creature, decades, or even centuries, spent as a Life form would be nothing more than a short "vacation" from being what they are. Should they choose to become Human, they would gain the knowledge of Love, loss, physical pain, emotional pain, hunger, suffering, hate, and our whole gamut of emotions and feelings that can be spoken of, but not truly "known" without having experienced them first hand. You see, to know that Love exists is one thing, but until you've actually experienced it, it is nothing but a word. They want to understand these things, so they take on the physical form of Human in order to do so. What humans call Spirit, or Soul, is just an acknowledgement to these greater beings inhabiting their bodies. Once these physical bodies expire, these beings are released back into their forms of pure energy, taking their experiences with them. They've lived and learned what it is to be Human...
Such a fantastic tale. It gives meaning to Life. Life is a learning experience, and while in this tale you won't find a Heaven or Hell, you can find Hope. Hope that there is indeed an "afterlife". One in which you will continue to exist in an ethereal form, and if you chose, you could even come back in a physical form. As an energy, you can travel backwards, forwards, or laterally along Time, choosing when and where you want to be. It embraces all known Laws of the Universe, and at the same time, rips them asunder. Energy cannot be destroyed, but it can change forms. Thought is a form of energy. Think of these Energy Beings as nothing more than all of the Thoughts ever had floating around as a collective mind--and us as their instruments for generating them. Science Fiction? Maybe. Or maybe it is the Reality we haven't yet been able to prove but we sense it so deeply, or know it intuitively, and therefore seek to explain through Religion. Organized religions exploit these feelings in order to control us and therefore I reject organized religion out of hand. My Spirit doesn't need to bend the knee to another in order to continue its existence.
Neither does yours.
On the other hand, this is just a Theory :
No, you aren't or you would be admitting that ID is not only entirely possible, but probable when ALL evidence is taken into account. No, for you, if you can't see it, taste it, or touch it, it doesn't exist. Hence the term Flat-Earther fits you. 2000 years ago, you would have feared falling off the edge because your mind isn't open to the concept that it could be round any more than your mind is open now to the concept that the evidence points towards Alien Races much older than ours do exist and have visited Earth on numerous occasions. Such small minded thinking is precisely what Religion exploits. Your Religion is Science. Funny that you should choose the Religion with the worst track record for being right about anything.
That's simply because I do not believe that "Life" is limited to biological creatures. I believe Life is actually Energy. My proof? Remove Energy from any form of Life and tell me what is left? NOTHING! Energy is what holds the sub-atomic particles together. Energy is what thoughts consist of. Energy is EVERYTHING, and thus Energy IS Life. Energy is indestructible. Energy has always existed from BEFORE the Big Bang. Energy will continue to exist AFTER the Great Collapse. Energy exists in every plane of existence. You cannot create it; you cannot destroy it. It is Life!
What "evidence" is there for ID? List it!
How else does one objectively collect information and evidence? Mere belief or wishful thinking is not evidence.
Not even a little. I don't subscribe to flat earth nonsense. So that statement is wrong!
Hilarious. you have yet to provide any evidence for alien influence. All you seem to go by is "because I say so" and pseudo documentaries or conspiracy theories.
On that, we agree.
Oxymoron alert. religion and science are polar opposites.
What's funny (and sad) is that you equate religion and science. And since when has religion been right about anything?
As you say, that is your "belief."
Energy is just a matter of atomic charges and a product of biological processes. It is required for "life." But it is not "life" itself. Unless you have proof of an energy based lifeform?
How poetic.
We consume chemical energy in our food and use it to power all of our bio-chemical life processes, but if you turn off the power source the machinery stops, including the thinking machinery in our brains. Conscious thought is a product of a living brain. It doesn't precede the existence of a brain, and it doesn't just go on forever all by itself after the brain ceases to function.
Energy is simply differences in potential. It's what allows change in physical systems to occur (work). Energy powers life, but is not itself alive. If you take all of the gas out of a car the car won't go, but the gas itself is not the car.
Your comment opened with a quote of my question:
So right off the bat, in your tale, you introduce a form of life of essentially infinite complexity. If complexity necessitates a designer who designed this master species?
We can agree to disagree about the RCC and still be friends
That comment reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works. There's no "scale of evolution", there are only populations of creatures which change over time in response to environmental pressures. And it's why some animals like sharks and starfish haven't changed much in a very long time - because their morphology is a good match for the environment they live in.
Bullshit. Cave painting to Picasso. Amoebas to man. They are on opposites ends of the scale of evolution. From simple to more complex. If you can't admit that as Evolution progresses, so does the complexity of its creations, then you would have to claim that there is no such thing as Evolution to begin with. There would be no "Evolving". Merely change.
Who knows? Certainly I don't. Do you? Could it be that they were the First Race that evolved to the point that they became these Energy Beings through Evolution? Or maybe they existed in that form forever. I mean that is nowhere any less fantastical a belief than your belief that Matter has always existed, now is it???
Strawman argument. Gas does not bind the car together nor is it essential to the cars existence as an object. You cannot have Life without Energy. The two are inseparable.
Actually, it does. Or are you arguing that thought is not energy or that energy can be destroyed merely by death and is created by birth????
I think you missed the point. The master species is complex and you are defending the claim that complexity requires a designer. You are missing a designer in your scenario. You just plopped in the master species and declared it 'first'. You broke the rule you sought to defend.
The answer is this - your scenario is an infinite regress. The master species would, by the rule you are defending, require a designer and that designer would require a designer, ad infinitum.
Well then you contradict the rule that complexity requires a designer. The whole point of your scenario now collapses.
I do not hold a belief that matter has always existed. Where did you get such an idea?
This is the only logical point to pursue IMO. The first species could have evolved from some lesser form that simply emerged from existence. But note that this also contradicts the very rule you seek to defend so ...
You. Me. The Sim's. Artificial Intelligence.
Take away Energy, and they ALL cease to exist thus they are ALL Energy based lifeforms. Note that two of those examples are 100% digital creations that cannot and do not exist in actual physical form, but merely as byproducts of Energy. Now you can argue that those two are not "lifeforms", and that is a whole different debate (is Artificial Intelligence alive if it can self-replicate?).
Them where did the Matter come from for the Big Bang? We have both entered the hamster wheel haven't we? The difference is that I DO believe in Evolution and that I do believe that there was a First Race that developed LONG before we were a fart in the Cosmic Wind. Just as I believe the Human Race will one day evolve to the point that we no longer need to be tied to a corporeal body. Imagine that. As we manipulate our genes to the point where we no longer have to kill plants and animals to give us sustenance we will evolve to the point where we draw the Energy we need to live from the Energy that surrounds us, we will evolve to the point where we can shed these bodies that limit us.
Wiki Alert.
Math.
Yet you prove yourself wrong. To wit:
Can you see around the world? Can you touch the other side of it? I believe it exists. but according to you, since I can't see it or touch it, it doesn't exist. Pardon me if I can take stupid things like the existence of air on faith and believe that I need to breathe...
Matter did not exist at the inception of the big bang. The first matter in the universe were quarks and electrons which formed in the first tiniest of a fraction of a second. Matter requires mass, without quarks there is no mass. What existed prior to that is an unknown substance. Something existed, by definition, but nobody knows what this substance of existence is.
Nope you are on that wheel riding solo. But you should try to understand why I am not on such a wheel.
Well you should not literally 'believe in' evolution since it is not a faith based notion. Phrase it (for future reference) as 'you are convinced evolution is correct based on the evidence'.
Based on evidence or is this just faith?
Only if you insist that the only Life form is Biological. Very big leap of faith there as you are claiming that there is no possibility of a totally Energy based Lifeform or a gaseous based lifeform existing anywhere in the universes. Hell, we don't even have every species on Earth recorded, have barely limped outside of our own gravitational well, and can't even get a good picture of the ground of our neighboring planets, so forgive me if I tend to err on the side of caution and willingly admit that I don't know what is and is NOT possibly out there in our Universe that can think and exist outside of our little slice of biospheric requirements...
Proof?
Nope. Your argument is that complexity requires a designer. Does not matter if the complexity is biological.
Except I never wrote anything like that. Your are making things up and claiming I wrote them.
None of us know. Your problem is that you do not realize you just created a strawman.
You've confused evolution with culture, and are apparently unaware that amoebae exist in environments where a man could not.
By definition . I gave you the short answer up-front.
Longer answer (by logic ): We exist. Therefore existence is real. The universe emerged from existence since it could not come from nothing. Something (underlying what we can recognize via physics) existed - we just do not know what it is.
Detailed answer: " Existence "
It wasn't a strawman, it was an analogy. Energy is to life what gas is to a (gas-powered) car: it's what powers it. If you want include the chemical bonds that hold things together then the car has those too, but that's a different form of energy, a static electromagnetic force (chemical/molecular bonds), not a kind of driving motive force.
What? Please tell me you don't think your thoughts are somehow eternal and self-sustaining in nature.
Thought is not energy in and of itself. Consciousness is not energy in and of itself. Life is not energy in and of itself. Energy is a required input for life, but energy is not 'alive'. When I charge up a battery I am storing energy in it, I am adding energy to it, but I am not breathing LIFE into it. The battery remains an inanimate non-living object. The energy content doesn't matter. Energy does not equate to life.
A bad one. As I pointed out, gas is a fuel so a better analogy would be comparing food for the body with gas for a car. Food is not on par with Energy in this context.
Thoughts are indeed eternal. whether or not they are self-sustaining is unknown at this point since they are composed of energy--which cannot be destroyed as we all agree--it begs to argue that they are indeed self-sustaining.`
Really? Then why is it a "dead battery" before you charge it? Once again, you are confounding biological exhibition of "Life" with Energy. The funny part is, it is the lack of Energy (electrical activity in the brain) that we accept as defining whether or not a person is alive or dead. It seems that Medicine and Science agree with me that Energy equates to life. I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree as neither of us are willing to change our views on what is essential to be considered "Life". You insist that it requires a biological body, while I believe that this is not necessarily true.
Ah ha and therein is the rub. If we must admit that there has always been an existence, then we must admit that there is the possibility that there has always been the possibility of a Creator; for as you state, we could not spontaneously generate from nothing. Once again, I do not believe this Creator is the God of the Biblical interpretation, but a higher form of existence than what we know. Why is that so hard to concede?
No; at least not intentionally anyway. I'm reading comments and replying to them. Thanks to the way this site is set up, my Reply jumps to the bottom of the page while what I'm commenting on is somewhere at the top. Combine that with the multiple conversations taking place, it is easy to mis-remember who said what without being able to review the comment you are trying to reply to easily. I apologize if I am confusing our conversation with someoneelse's.
Anyway, this is one of those philosophical conversations. It is a debate that neither side can win because at this point, neither of us can definitively prove the other side wrong. I'm sure you feel confident in your belief that this Life is it--all you get, nothing else comes next. I feel the same confidence that this is NOT it. There is more to come. Not Heaven or Hell, but a continuation of existence in another form. Maybe it will only be as worm shit, but we will continue to exist--one way or another, lol! I had fun, and I hope at least have provided food for though for those capable of thinking outside of the box. Is it possible that we are all part of a collective Being comprised of Energy that inhabits biological bodies just for shits and giggles? Maybe. Or maybe you are right; when you're dead, you're dead, so why would you waste your life working when you could just take what you want any way you can and live Life to its fullest before you become dirt???
Science deals with facts and evidence. Religion does not. Therefore, they are opposite.
How so? Evolution alone discredits ID.
Not even a little. You certainly haven't proved yourself or your assertions right.
Actually, yes. I can easily pull up maps and real time images. It can be observed and recorded.
It exists because we can prove it does. But it seems you prefer belief over fact.
We're carbon based organic lifeforms. Not energy based.
Computer programming.
Energy is a product of biological processes. It doesn't supplant it.
By that *ahem* logic, my calculator is a life form. Digital programming is hardly considered a lifeform, energy or otherwise. You're really grasping at straws now.
There most definitely is the possibility of a creator. I guess you did not bother to read my article - here is a quote from it:
But the possibility of a 'God' is not what we are debating. What we are debating is the idea of a designer (by any label) as the 'first cause'. That is, everything starting with a designer. So your attempt to move the goal posts is hereby denied.
Now, on this ...
That is not the reason there could be a designer. Note, CK, a designer cannot spontaneously generate from nothing either. So you inserting a designer to get around the nothing problem does not work. You see that, right?
Not true.
The conclusion contradicts the claim (since no designer can precede the 'first' cause). Your argument is a contradiction - (means it is wrong).
Basically this is an infinite regress. Your logic will never reach a first cause designer.
In what context again? That everything is energy, and energy is life, so everything is life?
If everything is life then nothing is. If there are no differences, then there can be no concept of difference. There can be no this compared to that. The whole concept of 'life' becomes meaningless.
OK. How? Don't even worry about eternity, just describe for me how thoughts can exist -- as thoughts -- independently and outside of the physical, material machinery that creates them.
You know full well that describing a battery as being 'dead' is just a figure of speech. It isn't meant literally.
I'm pretty confident that science (medical or otherwise) would not agree that energy alone equates to life.
By that definition (yours) the person is not dead, since he or she is made of out of molecules that are made out of atoms that are made out of subatomic particles that are made out of quarks that are essentially little packets of slightly differentiated energy. The person must be faking death somehow...
My position is simply that it requires matter as well as energy. Energy can't do anything by itself, it needs something to manifest in (or as), to express differences of potential within (or across). Energy without matter would just be undifferentiated potential, what we would probably describe as nothingness, or at least near nothingness, but certainly not life. As soon as you get differentiations (fluctuations) you get quarks and antiquarks, you get matter and antimatter. The idea that you can have non-corporeal, non material life is just impossible. Undifferentiated potential has no structure that can be ordered or configured in such a way as to constitute any kind of 'beingness'.
Hmmm, lemme see here. I believe what I am saying is that none of us know how Life began or how long it has been around, or in what form it first appeared. I believe I am also saying that the one constant in all of the Universe that exists in everything is Energy and therefore Life is just a form of Energy. Are any of these facts in dispute here?
Now the counter argument being made is that Energy is not Life because Life requires some sort of biomass and that Energy alone cannot equal Life because it is nothing more than just Quarks and anti-Quarks; the sub-atomic building blocks of matter. Once again, Quarks and anti-Quarks are held together-or apart-by Energy. It seems no matter how far we drill down into our physical existence, we keep finding that Energy is a key component of the structure in question. This leads me to believe that ultimately, what we will find, is that at some level, Energy itself is mass. Just as mass has various forms, so does Energy--some which we have already identified, but this basic building block has yet to be discovered because it is just too damn small to see, and our current scientific community hasn't yet come to the same conclusions I have that Energy=MC2.
Oh wait, yeah somebody beat me to it...
So Energy is mass, and there are different forms of Energy, and just as water can still be water, but have different properties due to its environment (ice, humidity, etc.), so too can Energy. Under the right conditions, we already know that Energy manifests itself as sentient beings. We already know that this sentience manifests itself through how it uses its Energy, but you seek to limit that sentience to only what YOU understand it to be. Yet here we are finding that our definition of what constitutes sentient Life is constantly evolving to where now we are beginning to accept that plantlife can be sentient too. (Sorry Vegans, yeah that celery is screaming when you eat it. (As an aside, I wonder what goes through the "mind" of a Sequoia tree????))
What all of this boils down to is that I believe we have a very long way to go before we can determine definitively whether or not Energy itself can be, or is, a sentient being. If it can be, like so many things we thought in the past weren't, then there does exist the possibility that Energy itself created this entire Universe and that No , we don't " die ". We revert to that form of intelligent Energy when our current biological form die-- and we rejoin that "hive mind" in the sky .
Color me an Optimist...
Now I realize that this would totally just fuck everyone up to find out that the Gaia Hypothesis is not only correct, but that the entire Universe is Sentient as well and that there is no end in sight, or a Beginning to be found (since under this theory the Big Bang would just be a massive Reset to a former existence much like our predicted Universal collapse resulting in another Big Bang later down the road ). On the other hand, it would be a hoot to find out we are nothing more than some kind of elaborate Sim game on an alien computer, or better yet....
No, Energy exists without biological process; biological processes cannot exist without Energy.
I think this discussion is way over your head Gorty because it involves both Science and Philosophy. You have to be able to accept not only what is Known, but also what is Unknown, and be able to admit that there are Possibilities which exist that we have not yet proven or disproved with Science. Just as Science is continually evolving as we discover new "facts" that may later prove to be wrong, so too must we accept that what we "know" today may turn out to be nothing but a wrong assumption at a later date as Science discovers more "facts". This requires being open-minded to possibilities that appear on the surface to be wishful thinking, or science fictional in nature just as the whole Earth revolving around the Sun must have at one time to those who witnessed the "fact" that the Sun circled the Earth...
True. None of us know how life began. On that we agree. But that is not what we were debating (we were debating your notion of a first-cause master species).
It is not clear that energy is the one constant - even in the known universe. The 'constant' if you will might be many levels below what we call energy. Therefore I went directly to 'quintessential existence' - the substance of existence. We do not know what the substance is - we simply know that it exists because existence itself is not in dispute.
I made no such counter-argument. You must be referring to others here so probably best to pursue this aspect with them.
Don't be obtuse. Energy is also produced by biological processes.
Not even a little.
I'm open to possibilities. But that doesn't mean I'm going to accept baseless assumptions or mere beliefs without question.
So far, your assertions seem to be factually bankrupt.
One can be too open-minded, to the point where their brains fall out.
Nope! Energy can not be produced, it can only be converted from one state to another. Have you forgotten your science class? You know, the part that said energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Energy production is how one describes converting energy to a new form.
Gordy is quite correct.
That isn't anywhere near what you stated:
Which was a rebuttal to my statement of:
So, Energy is NOT produced by biological processes, merely converted as Arpdx reminded you of--AND if you remove Energy from ANY life form, it ceases to exist as a lifeform, so again, ALL biological life forms are a form of Energy Beings. Arguing to the contrary would be the same as saying that Carbon based lifeforms would still be carbon based life forms if I remove the carbon! Not possible. Once you remove the key ingredient, you have changed the product to something else entirely. Kool-aid without Kool-Aid mix is NOT Kool-Aid, It's sugar water.
Hardly. You see everything that I have stated as FACT , is indeed factually correct. The things I have stated as Conjecture , at this point, remain so.
And well you should be asking the question: " Can this be possible and if so, How ?" Now if your mind is truly open, it will seek to connect the dots that would allow that possibility to exist and determine just how much of the "possibility" proposed is actually possible. This discussion is a prime example. Let's take some of those "facts", or "dot's if you will into consideration of the question as to whether or not Life on Earth is a product of Intelligent Design shall we?
I'm going to stop the list here simply because that no matter what I point out as logical possibilities, I have no doubt that you will only ridicule them. You will claim that I have no proof. Well, if you're looking for a used hypodermic needle with Alien fingerprints used to inserted coded DNA material into an homo erectus egg 2 million years ago--you're right; I have no "proof". Now I'll wait here for your proof that it COULDN'T have happened.
You've made it abundantly clear you are in no danger of that. I expect even more proof in your forthcoming Reply .
Nope. The energy is not produced .It is already there.
You are trying to redefine a very common word and a very common phrase. Energy creation is different than energy production.
To the point: cellular energy production
Producing energy does not mean creating energy, it means transforming energy.
Substitute the word " colors " for life and see if your statement makes any sense. Just as there are different " colors " due to environmental influences, so it is with Life . You can have a long life. A short life. A good life. A bad life. The best part about it, they can all be just phases of your current human life--or an entire human lifetime. Will you argue there is no difference in those lives simply because they are all part of one life? If I take some ice and raise it's temperature to boiling point, is it any less water simply because it was ice, and now is a vapor? No, it was always water from the time I started with it until I finished with it. How about a caterpillar? Is it not a butterfly in the making? Sure, these are transitional phases, but it does not change what these things really are.
As electrical pulses that have occurred, by very definition they are a piece of History that cannot be changed. Well, not yet anyway. We get around to traveling through time, we might actually be able to change History by stopping a thought from forming. Thoughts can be measured as electrical activity within the brain, so they have substance. They can be recorded or verbalized, therefore they exist. Since electricity is a form of Energy, the thoughts they make up cannot be destroyed although the form of that energy takes can be changed. This is why I'm not sure if thoughts " live " forever as anything other than History.
And exactly how do you know that? Has there been some scientific study done that proves that Life is not energy? I mean everyone admits that without Energy, there is nothing--no matter , no mass , no Life , so what proof do you have that Life is not just another manifestation of Energy. Actually, all evidence points in the opposite direction because without Energy, there is no Life . Even a rock has a Life. It started out as Energy, grew into a planet, became part of the Earths crust, and through change became the rock stuck in your shoe. This doesn't mean it is necessarily what we would call a Sentient Life ( but then we used to think plants weren't sentient either but now we know different) , but it is still a Life. Now take away that Energy that binds it together, and it becomes Nothing . So Yes , Energy is Life!
Exactly so. I wish you would have just said that from the get-go.
I think I'm done with whatever game it is you're playing.
No game; merely a discussion with those I believe to be of equal or greater intelligence than my own. Thank you or taking the time to communicate your thoughts.
CK
May I introduce you to the religion-soaked "heartland americas" of the country?
They're just asking for somebody to introduce a bill allowing for the teaching of the creation myth of Atum.
And since when did "myth" become synonymous with "theory"?
Probably never even occurred to the sponsor.
I was just thinking that the FSM folks will have a heyday with this bill if it actually goes anywhere.
Well, both words share the letters y, t and h. Maybe that's close enough for some people...
Rightwingers never have and never will understand that basic scientific concept. It flies against every political position they have.
Sadly, they have a vested interest in wrongly believing "religious theory" is the same as "scientific theory" so are often dishonest when comparing the two.
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."
A religious theory is merely an unsubstantiated idea or guess used to account for a situation or justify a course of action. Religious theory relies on no experimentation or real world observations and none can be reliably and repeatedly tested and confirmed.
Nothing like watching politicians violate the spirit of the 1st amendment while simultaneously encouraging young minds to disregard the foundation of modern biology in deference to an ancient book written by men with pens pretending to be God so as to influence the masses.
narcissistic men with pens.
The #1 recommended way to deal with a narcissist is to avoid them like your life depends upon it because it does.
Totally unconstitutional. They are stating that the 'Bible' has the ONLY relevant 'creation' theory. That is state support of a specific religion. Fail.
Betsy DeVos will totally endorse this.
hate that Bit%h
Amen brother, amen.
So you have shifted to feeling neutral about Obama, So much you say infers otherwise.
You don't need to know her personally to understand her religious beliefs and her goals about public education.
How am I trying to privatize and weaken public education for my own personal and religious benefit?
Probably as long as your sort has personally known and so often refer to Hillary Clinton.
I would expect quite a few religious people to find this to be bad as well.
First, because choosing the Bible favors one class of religion over another. That flies in the face of the 1st amendment (in spirit).
Second, because quite a few religious people actually do recognize evolution as the best explanation for origin of species that we have. Teaching biblical creation in school should (to them) be recognized as deliberately encouraging kids to actually consider that nonsense to be on par with modern science in the area of natural knowledge.
Even the Jesuits teach evolution.
My high school biology teacher would have loved this bill. Asshole thought evolution was bad, creationism good
Evolution is just a tool of the devil to lure us away from god, right? Or is that just science in general? >sarc<
Exactly! That man had no business teaching 10th grade biology
Unbelievable! A biology teacher that doesn't accept evolution.
Well, it was 1978 in rural Pennsyltucky in a primarily Republican county. You had to go to the next county to find Democrats because that's where the coal mines were.
This man also taught Problems of Democracy in our school. My school was very small and Spanish teachers taught English classes. LOL!
That explains a lot.
I've done my best to grow....
I'd say you've done just fine.
thank-you
which bible? There are many of them, with differences
Yep, and all the same god too.. Weird.
Just another part of the whole religion thing that does not fit together
There are a lot of dictionaries, too, but the words and definitions inside them are not varied enough to make an important difference.
Yeah, But ain't nobody trying to use a dictionary to rule my life or calling it the "Good Book"
The point is many people who try to discredit the Bible point to the many different versions as evidence of its fallibility. It's actually not a strong argument. There are legitimate reasons why some books are included in certain versions and others are not, and there are legitimate reasons why the various translations can vary so much. None of this delegitimizes the scriptures.
Ultimately though the Bible is the work of men. It is quite a work but it still is a product of human beings. The problem comes from people claiming that the Bible is divine - that it contains communications from the most supreme possible entity. That this entity is omniscient, omnipotent and ultimately perfect.
It is fascinating (to me) when people attempt to defend this demonstrably errant (factually and logically) piece of literature as even the indirect, sanctioned Word of a perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful God. Why is it fascinating? Because this profound contradiction is dismissed as nothing.
Because when hidden, lost then found, paradox's appear then disappear, in the Grand illusion, created by an imperfect creator, creating the perception, of being an imperfect creator.
Imperfectionism and the perfect creator imperfect together... ore the irony of a paradoxical perfect imperfection
you decide
.
On another note(memo),
have you ever found, yourself lost, at the long lost, lost and found, where you found yourself lost
.
at the lost and found,
where I have found, no one ever returns,
what is lost, at the lost and found...specifically, my blown EAGLES mind! E A G L E S EAGLES!!!
pardomoi' eagles fatigue
Off topic, but I am also thrilled the Eagles won.
Excellent game.
Of course, so is the discussion of Creationism but for me, not so much today
Enjoy your discussion, and continue to fight your FACT based arguments, because I'm too tired and have not a tenth of the tact and patience you possess .
out
And ultimately, this is not a very useful statement. Of course the Bible is the work of men. That doesn't mean that the stuff inside is false or that anything it says about God is false.
True. But that was not my point. My point was stated but you chose to not quote it and chose to not respond to it. And that is important in a real debate - acknowledging a point and offering a counter to it. Here is the point I made:
You quoted my opening words, but I went well past that to make my point. My point is the blue text: ' problem comes from people claiming that the Bible is divine '.
The Bible no doubt has truth in it. But is this divine truth? Is this really the Word of God or is it the words of men with pens pretending to be God. The errors in the Bible (my supporting argument against biblical divinity) - in green - suggest that the Bible is not divine because the God it defines is perfect, omniscient and omnipotent. Not the kind of God to be putting forth an errant book as His divine word.
perhaps the divine one, needs an intervention...cause God knows, no one & everyone is to know one and everyone, isn't necessarily, to love one and everyone, long time.
I've often wondered if God was OmniImpotent, cause Mary's story sounds like an Immaculate misconception, as SCIENCE,
had not invented in-vetro fertilization yet know one noticed
except perhaps JOSEPH, as he never accepted such a God Damn Lie about an impotent omnipotent one
and only . he'supposedly more than my developmenthas got the whole world in his tiny hands
Y do you supposedly think he/sh/it
created such a "shitwhole" i'll shall wander around wondering like the EAGLES the wunder under DAWG
now my head hurts Eagles hangover settin and just heard I've got to do it all again
come Thursaday f only God had created a Day to arrest oh, that's thirsty Thursday,
y do I feel many who read this are asking George Burns, Oh God Enuff already ? out
"Rape by a deity" is still a valid excuse for a teen pregnancy in the bible-babble belt.
The Catholic church believes in abstinence and the rhythm method but they have a virgin saint that got pregnant without ever having physical contact with someone who wasn't her husband.
Did Joseph and Mary not consummate their marriage until after the birth of Jesus?
Mary used the turkey baster method. Catholics consider it a miracle because rubber didn't exist in the mideast at the time.
I believe the Catholic Church maintains that she remained a virgin for life, doesn't it? I'm not Catholic, so I'm not sure, but I believe there were some objections on that basis to the mention of Jesus having a brother.
I was Catholic and I don't ever remember being taught that she remained a virgin for life. A few years ago Christians claimed that Jesus was real because supposed tomb of James who is claimed to be the brother of Jesus, was found. I recently read something that claimed that she was virgin in name only and that James was Joesph's son, so Mary would have been a step-mother.
This situation makes the holy family look like people who were on Jerry Springer.
I think that's how "purity rings" and born-again virgins work too.
It appears that the perpetual virginity of Mary has been doctrine in the Catholic Church, although I don't know if it still is.
I just read that link. WOW that is something I never heard of. As I've said before this whole thing just does not add up.
I never heard Mary was Joeseph's second wife, I had heard of his brothers
I think I remembered hearing it when "The Davinci Code" came out - some people were outraged because Jesus would never have had sex, and furthermore, neither did his mama. Not even after he was born, according to the RCC.
I think that the theory in the DaVinci Code is very compelling, and I can see why the institutionalized Catholic business interests would see it as threatening their power.
I'm not sure I believe that Jesus has surviving descendants, although I wouldn't rule it out. But yeah, it was clear that the Church found the whole idea very threatening, and not just in the pages of the book. The backlash against the very idea that Jesus might have married was over the top. Would that have changed who he was? Or taken away from his divinity, assuming he was divine? Of course not.
But it didn't suit the prudishness of the church, which seemed to think that even sex between married couples was a bit too icky to be holy.
It would be quite a feat to have lineage records (much less accurate ones) that go back 2000 years to Nazareth (and Bethlehem). Given the basic records of Jesus' life and deeds is so spotty (and under considerable debate) something as specific as lineage seems to me as next to impossible.
Exactly. In a time when written records are much more common, and the literacy rate much higher, I can't trace my own maternal grandmother's line farther back than 5 generations. Thousands of years of preserved genealogy from a man whose birth date and year we're not even sure of, and who may or may not have been married and may or may not have fathered children, isn't likely to be found. So we'll never know one way or the other for sure.
It's interesting to speculate, but speculation is all we're ever likely to have.
As if we have not dumbed ourselves down enough. Science is fact, religion faith I'll go with fact.
Certain state legislatures then double down on stupidity, especially with Bill's like this one. Not surprisingly, it comes from Alabama.
How sad that some people prefer their dogma over actual fact.
Science is a process.
Don't be obtuse The scientific process determines facts and add to our base of knowledge, unlike religion which seeks to control the gullible and enrich itself.
Hmmm. How shall I respond to this? Were you hoping for respect? Do you imagine this is persuasive? I find it ironic that someone who assumes they are more intelligent than I should stoop to this as an argument. I hypothesize (scientific term) that there is a certain level of snobbery and bias necessary to cause a person to choose this particular path to change minds. I wonder if you imagine that it's scientific. Now that would be funny!
Because when Christ allowed himself to be crucified and his disciples abandoned what wealth they had, travelled the countryside preaching his message under penalty of torture, imprisonment, and death, they were trying to "control the gullible" and "enrich" themselves.
Where's my eyeroll gif? Ah! Here it is!
There is nothing unusual about people dying for their beliefs. We see this happen nowadays in stark terms with the suicide bombers. Nobody doubts that these people truly believe they are going to see Allah and be rewarded as martyrs for taking the lives of innocent bystanders.
The fact that people are willing to die for religious beliefs does not make the beliefs true - it simply means they believed. (Remember Heaven's Gate ?)
Epistte, by the way, was talking about organized religions. Do you not recognize how religion has been (and continues to be) an extremely effective method for controlling people?
Here is a list of other gods that allowed themselves to be crucified before your god. Your god's death and resurrection was patterned after older gods.
There is if your argument is that those people are doing it to control other people or to get rich. That's what I responded to.
Of course I do, but the conversation was about core beliefs, not religious bureaucracy. The fact that the latter develops is a problem with human beings. I have repeatedly spoken against the institutions of religion. But these don't always tell us anything about the core beliefs or practices. Christianity is particularly unique in this regard compared with, for example, Islam - which you brought up. Christianity, from Day 1, was spread by martyrs who only told people around them what they had witnessed and what they believed. Islam, by contrast, spread itself with the sword. Islam is actually a great example of a religion that set out to do precisely what epistte was talking about.
Well my point was that people are quite capable of accepting things on faith to the point of their own death. Note the reference to suicide bombers and the Heaven's Gate cult. It was there in the body of my comment:
Agreed. But I will reiterate that core beliefs are easy to achieve in human beings. Look at all the cults (this is why I mentioned Heaven's Gate). One charismatic individual can get people to believe some truly amazing things. And, of course, the fact that ancient men firmly believed their own stories does not mean the stories were even remotely true. Indeed, the more extraordinary the claim the more one would expect commensurate evidence. Nowhere to be found.
That is hardly exclusively how Christianity spread. Hell, people have been killed for not liking the right flavor of Christianity.
Faith has its place and can be justified in certain circumstances, but fact needs no justification. For many years I believed the Rock of Gibralter existed, I did have faith from the evidence I had read or heard or the photos I had seen, but when I actually saw the Rock of Gibralter with my own eyes, it became an indisputable fact that it existed.
Why? because they stand up to Christians who willingly and knowingly violate the Constitution?
Since when are scientific facts and theories subject to a popularity contest?
I remember when if you answered incorrectly on a science test, you would get that question wrong and your grade suffered for it. What's the point of taking science or tests if you can simply say "god did it" and not get anything wrong?
Teach facts in school and religion in church. People need to stop mixing the two up.
Agreed. Like I said, some people prefer their dogma over actual facts. I guess they need the emotional comfort that their dogma provides.
Boy somebody got all over my case a few days ago because I didn't appreciate an open bible laying on a table in the foyer of my kids' public school.
Commenter stated that since I couldn't show any physical harm from it that I should just let it go. And that I couldn't prove that an administrator put it there. What difference does it make if an administrator or teacher put it there. The fact is whoever put it there got consent from the front office. And THAT is a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause.
Oh yeah, I remember that. That was kind of funny. Especially since that particular poster seems to think that something if fine as long as it doesn't cause harm.
he's a ......
can't say it
Wasn't there a trash can close by?
LOL...no
There you go, nicely said.
It is the mental harm that needs addressed.
Our world already has enough narcissists and sadists without having a religion that justifies their existence. A religion with the sole purpose to create more victims for the abusers.
There is nothing comforting about believing in a god that created you as a flawed creature that is detestable to the perfect, all knowing, all seeing, infallible god. This is narcissism. Narcissists ruin lives because it is the only thing that gives them pleasure. And they claim that they do it out of "love".
You should have just taken it and dropped it in the nearest trash bin. If an administrator complained they'd have to explain who it belonged to and what it was doing there.
You're right, I should have. Imagine the reactions of the bible thumpers
I've never understood that either.
Why worship a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient being who created you flawed and then punishes you for being flawed? Omniscience means it knew full well it was making you flawed, and omnipotence means it didn't have to (it did it on purpose).
The whole concept of original sin makes the supposed loving creator nothing but a sadist.
Now that I'm thinking about it, why worship a being who DEMANDS your worship in the first place? Nothing creepy about that...
How needy/jealous is this 'perfect being' supposed to be, anyway?
Supremely needy/jealous. One of the commandments is to have no other gods.
It is also supremely inept. It needs companionship and then creates a flawed creature that disobeys the rules and can't understand much of anything. It would be akin to Einstein hanging out in the nursery to find intelligent conversation.
We've all heard the saying "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". Imagine what omnipotent absolute power does.
I guarantee that if you would have chunked that book in the trash, you would have found it's owner within 30 seconds.
Can you imagine the sadistic and narcissistic personality of the man who created the god, Yahweh?
“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.”
― Gene Roddenberry
Because Christians wrote the creationism bill, there is zero doubt that the only creation myth they will allow taught is the one about Yahweh poofing into existence and the poofing everything else into existence because he needed trillions of planets, moons, stars for reasons that are never explained.
Billions of years after this planet cooled, Yahweh decided he needed companionship and created creatures in the sea that eventually crawled out of the sea and over millions of years evolved into dinosaurs.
For reasons that are never explained, Yahweh then destroyed the dinosaurs and allowed the rodents to survive. Over the course of a few more millions of years, the rodents evolved into various creatures, including the ones that we descended from.
So science says life started and evolved from the oceans. The Bible says Yahweh poofed everything into existence except our species which was created from dirt. And Yahweh only made one of our species - a man. For some reason that is never explained, the man was not content with having ONLY Yahweh for a companion despite the fact that the Bible says being with Yahweh is everything a human could ever want or ask for. Why wasn't Adam satisfied?
Anyway, in order to satisfy Adam, Yahweh created Lillith. Lillith found Adam to be wanting and left. So Yahweh had to operate on Adam and take a rib to create a companion that would tolerate Adam.
I don't see how teaching this to children anywhere at any time is beneficial, but it should never be allowed in a taxpayer funded school.
All of that stuff is probably what passed for normal at the time. Bronze Age morality, I suppose.
Depends on the region of the world.
Hey, thanks. I didn't know that about the Minoans.
Hopefully, the Alabama legislature will kill this bill itself, but if they actually pass it, it will be reversed as soon as a court reviews it. Not wanting myths taught in science classes is not anti-Christian, it's common sense. Face it, evangelicals, after voting in Trump, you have no moral ground to stand on. You are no different then any other lobbyist, and when Trump is finally tossed out of office, you will have no more political power and no more religion either. You traded away Christ for temporary earthly power, hope you enjoy your deal.
Considering this is Alabama (Roy Moore-land), I'm not so sure.
Indeed. There is legal precedent regarding creationism is public schools.
Since when do creationists have common sense?
are we going to teach the origin from all religions or just the Christian bible stated version ?
This is Alabama we're talking about. What do you think? LOL
Besides, other creation myths are far more entertaining than the biblical version.
Oh I don't know, I really want to see a talking snake!
Just watch the Jungle Book.
I mean a real one, up close and personal.
I was afraid to touch
this one, but you're rolling with it....
There are so many innuendoes in that statement.....
but some around here don't appreciate Italian suppositories
Or Harry Potter....another thing the Christians hate.
That is more the fundamentalists. Most Christians that I know find Harry Potter to be an excellent work of fiction. And based on the success of the books and movies, etc. in the USA (people speaking with their pocketbooks) it would seem our Christian dominated society is quite happy with Harry Potter.
I remember a news story some years ago after harry potter became massively successful where a Texas town (no surprise there) was complaining to the school board about schools having harry potter books in their libraries. They thought it would promote witchcraft and Satanism in their children. Let's face it, some people are just friggin insane! And by observation, there seems to be a relation with fundamentalism too. Curiouser and curiouser.
I think I remember that, too. Didn't they burn a bunch of Harry Potter books or something?
I don't recall that exactly, but it wouldn't surprise me. There's no greater embracement of willful stupidity than burning books.
The fine print in this bill probably makes pedophilia legal for old white rwnj thumpers.
Alabama finally got around to banning bestiality a year or two ago, so at least in one sense of the word they're evolving.
In closely related news,
Can a self-taught rocket scientist prove the Earth is flat?
Lol read that story a few months ago, what a loon.
As a science teacher, this only raises 2 issues for me.
1. Public education should not be in the religion business as it violates the 1st. Creationism is a religious belief/concept. What your kids to learn about creationism, send them to religion classes or to a religious school.
2. It takes away classroom time that should be dedicated to evolution and does not prepare them for the ACT and soon the SAT, which both have a science part that includes evolution.
In this case, the students in Alabama would be at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the nation.
Being from Alabama is a disadvantage in it self, they shouldn't keep stacking the deck against these poor kids, as
they are probably home looking through their parents old vinyl, and marveling over that
Van Halen III album cover, you know, the one with the fat bald guy VS the cannonball...hint,hint
Have you ever encountered a student who scoffed at science as if it were some kind of evil conspiracy? If so, how did you handle it?
Apart from appealing to their bible-babbling T-bagger base I don't understand why conservative legislators even bother to pass such blatantly unconstitutional laws. There's zero chance this law would ever go into effect even if it were passed and signed.
These are the same people that invented this:
Oh wow. Please tell me that's a joke.
I REALLY hope it is. But honestly. would you be shocked if it wasn't? I know I wouldn't be.
Sick $hit there
I suppose not, I'm sorry to say.
It's a joke.
With the draconian mindset of a few controlling so many in the grips of Religious hands
You never can tell, and I would not put it past them,
...wait a minute, am I on candid blogger seed here ? Did Frosty Punk Me? Damn U Frosty!!!
While the pictured device is likely a joke, there is a long history of such devices invented and used by religious prudes.
" Patent No. 104,117 (June 11, 1870). Daniel P. Cook, Hartford, CT"
" My invention is a device for so covering up the sexual organs of a person addicted to the vice of masturbation , from his own touch and control, that he must refrain from the commission of the vicious and self-degrading act … It is well-known to those who have charge of prisons, reform schools, and the like, that the practice of masturbation becomes all but universal among those confined therein. [Also] multitudes of children … injure their moral and physical natures for life by the practice of this vice. My invention is designed to put it into the power of those who have the control of all such persons to entirely prevent the practice."
Outside of Muslim countries, the US is one of the most religious countries in the world. Also, one of the most sexually phobic. The mindset that sex is for procreation only is one of the reasons that the Christian crusaders are against birth control (and not just abortion).
Kellogg invented corn flakes to stem sexual urges - ALL of them.
Then there is the history of the invention of the vibrator to relieve "hysteria" in women whose husbands left them sexually frustrated.
Back to the birth control issue.
We only have to review the Comstock Laws to know what the religious zealots in the US are capable of doing. We should learn our history and never repeat it.
I know it is wiki, but there is a lot of good material at the link below to use for a quick reference.
So that's why she was always going horseback riding...
Maybe. LOL!
Interesting history of women, saddles, and even fighting for the right to vote.....
Pretty sad when a woman's safety plays second fiddle to "decency". So she got thrown, broke her neck, and died? Well, at least nobody saw her knees!
I thought they rode sidesaddle...?
Knees? How scandalous!
There was a war over split skirts and then pants.
In my corner of the Bible Belt, the men, on the school board, still considered it sinful for girls to wear pants. It was probably the late 1960s before girls were permitted to wear pants to school.
The Easterners rode sidesaddle.
their Eastern sisters, who saw the horse as a weekend entertainment.
I thought they rode sidesaddle...?
.
I'm confused. If they were riding for entertainment, I thought they wouldn't be riding sidesaddle, was my pointless point pointing me in the get out of here position.
Sorry, you fine young ladies please continue, I'm headed bareback out to pasture.
My dad graduated in '67 and my mom in '69, in West Virginia. Girls had to wear dresses or skirts. Boys had to wear slacks. No blue jeans. Girls had to take home ec. Boys had to take shop.
Are we still talking about horseback riding?
I'm just trying to get young ladies off
the subject of vibrators, dildos, and horseback riding.
The Devils Toolz I tell you, REPENT Sinners
Reminds me of a video by 'Rival Sons' "keep on Swinging", and no non clean minded ones, not that kind of 'swinging'.
It portrays a Church Congregation with the flock, having that Religious Brain Washed look about them, with a weird Baptismal scene. It strikes home with me, having a 'Born Again' over on holidaze. There is something weird and 'off' about those who have completely given themselves to 'God'.
I like the music, but the video takes a peek into how Middle America can sometimes be brainwashed by the Right, who hypocritically endorsed our 2 Second Corinthians trice married Stormy Porn Star Dancing round the subject while he grabs 'pussy's' because they just "let" him.
Very ilLustrative of this discussion IMO Alright, back to Queen Victoria , I mean Mr Ed and WIIILLLLBBBBUURRRRRRRRRR feel the vibrations....
So, your intentions are pure, huh?
Ok.
would depend what your definitions of' 'are' are.
There is a great movie (Hysteria) about this.
It's very common to accuse someone who disagrees with you of having a phobia - i.e., their opinion is not based in rational thought, but rather on irrational fear. Therefore, their opinion should be dismissed and not regarded seriously. In a bubble, this makes it easy to win an argument.
In ancient times, when these rules were first written, there were important issues of social order and property management that relied on conformity to these rules. Those issues still exist to some degree today. There is also some indication that there are psychological impacts associated with casual or arbitrary partnerships. More study needs to be done, though.
But I wouldn't assume that just because someone sees wisdom in conforming to certain sexual mores that they have some irrational fear of sex.
And there is no reason to assume that people who seek to control the sexual/reproductive lives of others via disinformation and legislation are not erotophobic.
"But I"
sometimes get hysterical
about
erotophobia
Yes there is. Try assuming the best in people instead of the worst.
There are literally thousands of controls on my life and yours every day in the form of laws and regulations. They are often flawed, but they are usually created by decent people with good intentions.
don't spend their time trying to legislate other people's sex and reproductive lives according to religion doctrine.
Which part bothers you? The sex part or the religion part? Why does either matter? If it's a smart idea, why does it matter what the topic is or where you think it comes from?
We have tons of laws regarding people's sex lives. For example: prohibitions about sex in public, with younger people, with someone else's spouse, if you have a communicable disease, with people closely relates to you, etc. Some are health related and some we can identify in scripture. Some both.
Government offices are closed on the weekends. Is this because of the Bible or because it benefits mental health and the national economy to take a couple of days off every week? Who cares?
People who are discriminated against because of religious doctrine.
There needs to be a legitimate secular basis for any of our laws. If it's mentioned in your "scripture" it should immediately raise the suspicion that no legitimate secular basis exists, as well as the suspicion that such a law might result in unnecessary entanglement with religion.
The complete lack of any legitimate secular basis is why the Christian sharia laws against sodomy, same-sex sex, mixed-race marriage, same-sex marriage, blasphemy and various blue laws have all been struck down by the courts. But to the extent that sex-related laws still exist they mostly hinge on the issue of consent and the ability to give it
The prohibition of sex/nudity in public is puritanical and based on conservative religion.
When was the last time that someone was arrested for consensual adultery? Will Trump be arrested for his fling with the porn star while he was married to Melania? Will Melania be arrested for her fling with Trump while he was still married to his previous wife?
People with diseases can have sex, as long as both parties are aware.
Incest laws vary by state.
Why do you care about LGBT or interracial people can have imtinate relations? How does that effect you in any possible way? Are you or anyone else forced or even asked to approve?
What are the relevant secular sexual mores to support denying LGBT people the very same rights that others enjoy? Should we also deny interracial couples and interfaith the right to marry are are you not a bigot?
How are you or anyone else harmed by LGBT people having equal rights?
Do you know what an appeal to antiquity/tradition argument is?
How can we stay that all people have equal religious rights to believe and live as they choose if many people are forced to obey the religious beliefs of the majority or the politically powerful? Can I force you to live by my religious views or does that street only go one way?
Laws against adultery are probably also based in conservative religion. But they are unenforceable in secular legal practice. What's next, forcing women who have an affair to wear a "Scarlett Letter?"
Same thing with laws against incest between consenting adults.
How many of those laws are "smart ideas", and how many are just busybodies being busybodies?
I hope one of the teachers starts showing episodes of Hercules with Kevin Sorbo to his class every day and tells the school administration that they are historical documentaries that explain creation... Maybe some kid will graduate with a Bachelors in Iolaus and a minor in Xena theory...
I demand that the Hindu creation myth is also taught if Christians get to teach Genesis in science class.
Demand in one hand, and shit in the other... See what one fills up quicker.
You can't teach one religious myth without teaching others. That is a violation of the 1st Amendment's Establishment clause because the state would be endorsing both religious belief and one religious belief over another. They are either all taught equally or none of them are taught in public schools.
Both are taught equally. There is no class titled "Christianity", nor is there a class titled "Hinduism". Not in Public schools anyway.
So what is your point?
oh, so with this proposed bill:
will also teach the origins of humans as presented in the Hindu religion ? could you point out to everyone where it states that, i think a lot of people missed it. Otherwise, maybe your statement that they are "taught equally" might be dishonest and untrue, correct ?
What do you mean "both"? There are thousands of various Cretinism myths from all around the world and they all need to be taught in our secular public schools. With any luck that's all the kids will have time to study.
It would be very helpful if you would read and understand the shit you are trying to discus, before you try and discus it.
From the actual proposal:
A teacher in a public school especially a science class, should not be discussing religious belief to begin with.
Who died and made you God?
True. And now let's move from the distant past up to the point where a major scientific breakthrough occurs - the explanation of the origin of species through evolution. At that point human beings for the first time had a credible explanation for how complex biology could evolve undirected based on genetic variations and natural selection.
In other words, we learned. Nowadays, given what we have learned, you will find that scientists do not explain living organisms as being created by a sentient designer. The complex biological phenomena such as eyes, spider webs, flight, etc. are all explained by evolution. Creationism has the inescapable logical problem of 'who designed the designer?'. Evolution does not suffer that fatal flaw.
In other words, you can't refute my point, especially since it's supported by the Establishment Clause.
Then what do you call simply 'poofing' something into existence?
That's nice. prove it!
First you have to prove there is a god for that statement to even be remotely valid.
You go on the mere assumption there's a god to begin with.
An argument from authority. Also none of them could actually substantiate that particular belief!
Yahweh is a sadist.
Explain why a loving being would create this world....
Religion is not to be taught in public school science classes. Do the words secular or empirical mean anything to you? The current religions can be covered in mythology class and mentioned in passing in literature and history classes but it is not to be taught as religious belief.
The SCOTUS says so in the relevant decisions.
Do you have a cite for this passage?
Yet the bill states they would teach "the theory of creation as presented in the Bible". So they can't stress any denominational religious belief but they'll teach the fantasy presented in Genesis? So what the bill is really saying is that they won't stress any specific denomination, no strictly Catholic, Protestant or Hasidic doctrines, but they can only teach Christian or Jewish creation theory. Why do you believe the biblical creation theory is superior to Hindu, ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek or Roman creation mythology?
Look, I understand you have difficulty in grasping simple concepts, but let me try again, I will dumb it down a bit for you...
That is in the bill, period. All they can do is put forward the theory of creation, there is nothing wrong with that.
Actually, there is something wrong with that. First of all, creationism is not a theory. It's a silly religious concept. Secondly, as a religious based concept, it cannot be taught or pushed in a public school. Third, the bill allows for creationism to be taught as "the theory of creation as presented in the Bible." That means the focus and preference is on the Abrahamistic religions (especially Christianity), to the exclusion of all other religions and their creation myths. That shows a religious preference, which in itself is unconstitutional. Strike three!
There is no theory of creation. Intelligent Design/creationism is the Bible book of Genesis dressed up in a pilfered lab coat to give it some sort of authority to the gullible, the authoritarian and the willfully ignorant.
As "presented in the bible" which by definition limits it to specific faiths which is beyond wrong, it's unconstitutional.
If a teacher, as a side note when discussing the facts behind evolution or teaching about the big bang, decides to say "And some people of many different faiths believe their personal deity is responsible for all creation, but since there is no empirical evidence of any God, gods or Goddesses, we'll stick to what we do know instead of exploring unproven hypothetical's." I'd be fine with that. However, presenting "creationism" as a valid alternative with the same weight as scientific research would only further harm children. The brainwashing and indoctrination they receive at home and at Church will do more than enough harm.
yes, it would be helpful if you read and understood the "shit" before discussing, especially since i posted it in my comment:
do Muslims call their religious book the "Bible" ?? how about Hindus ? no ? did you see that it specifically states the "Bible" for this bill ? so gee... it looks like they are only discussing Christianity , huh ? gosh.. almost looks like your statement before:
is dishonest at best, huh ? (unless you can point out in the bill where it states that the Hindus are allowed to use their religious book - which isn't called the "Bible" btw)
A public school science teacher mentioning creationism as an alternative to evolution is a state endorsement of a Protestant Christian concept that ignores the creation beliefs of other religions. If creationism is mentioned in public school biology classroom then all other religious creation myths must also be mentioned and given equal credence.
What are you asking for? You want a whole population of birds who are bad at flying? You want softer rock? Flatter topography? What about how Attenborough praises their "remarkable resiliency?" Without this drama there would be no cause for such praise and the ultimate mastery of flight would not be an achievement worth talking about.
Oh well, I'll just refer you back to your own quote.
The bill straight up says they cannot push any one religion, so get over it, lol!
Don't be intellectually dishonest. You cannot logically mention creationism as an alternative to the proven theory of evolution in a public school science class without endorsing a Protestant Christian belief because of Intelligent Design/creationism/YEC isn't a belief in Orthodox Christianity or other religions.
Creationism is a religious concept. So pushing it in school, especially a science class, is pushing religion.
I don’t have a problem with schools ensuring that a scientific theory doesn’t undermine a religious belief by allowing a teacher to present both views. I’m curious as to how much time could possibly be devoted to creationism in a classroom since the biblical passages on the subject are very few.
In any event, the Bill seems internally inconsistent. It says teachers cannot promote any particular religious denomination but expressly allows them to base instruction on the Bible. I don’t know whether the Bill is saying that teachers can’t promote any particular religion or whether it’s saying that they can’t promote any particular Christian denomination and is excluding other religions from coverage. Either way, I think the bill is problematic as written.
If the bill can be revised to pass judicial scrutiny, then maybe they can extend similar protection to teachers who want to offer an alternative to teaching children that homosexuality and transgenderism is normal and acceptable.
I have a problem with a teacher -TEACHING SCIENCE- who would offer religious beliefs as a 'second view'. For whatever reason. Similarly, I would have a problem with a teacher providing students an education in crust, mantle and core and the internal pressures forcing magma through weak points in the crust resulting in the formation of volcanoes .... and then offering a 'second view' of the Roman God Vulcan.
That's because volcanism is caused by the fire giant Surtr - it would be wrong of our secular schools to teach anything which would dissuade children from that superstition.
Not sure where you get your information but it's incorrect. Everyone with any knowledge knows it's caused by the goddess Pele Pele.:)
And therein lies the problem. If we allow in one "alternative" creation myth, you have to allow them all to be taught, and then you no longer have a science class, you have a theology class.
"I don’t have a problem with schools ensuring that a scientific theory doesn’t undermine a religious belief"
Science has and always will undermine religious belief. Humanity has always started from a position of facing the unknown, and religion has always stepped up to explain the things that we weren't able to examine thoroughly or didn't have a way to investigate them. Then, as scientific tools are invented and we get a clearer picture of universal realities science undermines and eventually discards the fictional invented explanations religion has given us. From claiming the earth was the center of the universe to claiming sin was the cause of most illnesses and disease, science eventually wins out.
If you don't want your religious belief to be undermined, you may want to go stick your head back in the sand so facts, reason, logic and reality can't reach your ears.
Then you have the problem of which creation myth is the "correct" one. After all, they cannot all be correct.
Public schools are to teach facts and not religious myth/beliefs with taxpayer money. Should we also teach alchemy as an alternative to Chemistry class?
What is it about the fact that homosexuality and gender identity predates your religion that bothers you? There have always been some people who are born LGBT, unlike being born Christian. Being religious is something that is forced on most people by their parents.
If a teacher can open his/her mouth to say, in any way, that homosexuality/transgenderism is normal (which is an opinion rather than a fact), then teachers can give a scientific explanation for creation and also say that it’s ok for kids to believe what their faith teaches them. They can make up their own minds.
Homosexuality and being transgender are very normal for >5% of the population, despite what you want to believe. Why would someone choose to be either gay/les or transgendered?
My question is why are you so concerned about the sex or gender of other people? Were you the object of an attempted conversion at a Gay Pride festival?
Creationism is purely a religious belief that is not endorsed by all Christian sects, with nothing empirical to support it. Science teachers are not trying to change a person's religious views or to convert anyone. They are paid to teach facts and scientific concepts. Learn the facts, pass the test and move on to the next grade level, even if you are a fundamentalist, Christian.
How do you explain genetic families, plate tectonics, and fossil layers if you believe in Genesis as literal? If the Earth is 6000 years old then how do you explain galaxies that are light 10,000,000 years away
I was
Was it as fabulous as I have heard?
For moi' it twas a mellon collie moment of infinite sadness that hurt my gay pride
"so good so good baby your so good" is watt they amplified to me at the conversion, asz I was scared out of my conversionary Converse "sneaking round my back door"
Mental institutions are filled with people with conditions that predate most religions. Are you going to suggest we stop treating them and just declare the conditions normal?
I never said what I believe nor is it relevant. Anyway, I doubt the distance of the nearest galaxy has any bearing on the age of the earth or vice versa. However, what if space and time don’t actually exist and much of the “universe” is beyond our three dimensional perception? The more answers we get, the more questions we find.
Schizophrenia and being bipolar destroy a person's ability to function in daily life, unlike being LGBT. What is it about a person being LGBT that bothers you so much?
Genesis claims that your god created the entire universe, so everything in the universe is 6000 years old or less if you take Genesis as fact. Space obviously does exist and time is a function of velocity according to Einstein's theory. You cannot pick and choose which parts oGenesisis that you beleive. It is an all or nothing idea if you claim that Genesis is the theory of creation.
If public schools teach Genesis then they must give equal time to the creation beliefs of all religions in science class because the government can't pick and choose which ones are true. Either they are all relevant and much be mentioned or none of them are to be taught in public schools as an alternative to the theory of evolution. It is the very same concept as when one religion gets to put a religious monument on public property. If one religion opens that door then all religions get to walk through it.
it's fact. Refer to the APA on such matters.
A contradiction in terms. There is no scientific explanation for creationism.
people can believe whatever they want. But actual facts and evidence is not up to belief or a popularity contest.
Psycology is not a science and what they say is their opinion not a fact.
If it allows you to more easily follow along, then substitute the word “existence” or “evolution” for “creation”. My point is that the teacher is not prohibited from giving a scientific explanation for humanity’s existence.
Unless of course it’s the belief that homosexuality and transgenderism is normal when that’s an opinion not a fact. Democrats have no problem with teaching kids fiction when it’s a fiction they believe.
That would be incorrect.
"Creation", especially from a religious viewpoint, does not equate to existence or evolution. "Creation" in this sense equates more to "myth." but a science class is not the proper venue for mythology.
Then there's no reason to mention creationism, as that is not a valid scientific explanation for humanity's existence.
I didn’t express any personal opinion on Genesis. Again, aIl I said is that I don’t have a problem with a teacher pointing out that faith has a different view so as not to undermine religious beliefs. Space and time are related. The ordinary laws of physics, operating within time, cannot explain the beginning of time. There would be little point in explaining relativity, space/time, or quantum physics to a shepard standing on a hillside. And, even if you gave the explanation and wondered what set time in motion, he could say “God” and you couldn’t prove him wrong.
They can’t teach religion. All they have to say is that science doesn’t have all the answers and religion(s) have answers of their own or something to that effect. It seems to me that science can be taught without including the obvious tone (bandied about on this thread) that faith is for fools.
There are many articles explaining why psychology is not a science. Here’s one.
Not all people im mental imstitutions are bipolar or have schizophrenia. Schizphreics and those that are bipolar are able to function in society if they take the proper medications. Ss far as lgbts go I just think people need to live in the real world and not some fantasy land they made up in there heads .
An opinion piece from a newspaper article is the best you can do? Utterly laughable! But ok, here is a counter (from a more reputable publication) article :
But here's another reason why you're (unsurprisingly) wrong: Psychology is considered a science, because it utilizes scientific methodology for devising treatments and measuring outcomes. While some factors of psychology are difficult to measure, the field is rooted in testing hypotheses.
Religious views belong in a church, not a science classroom. And you still haven't demonstrated how religious beliefs are undermined.
The Big bang is considered the beginning of time.
Exactly. And creationism is a religious concept. Not a scientific, or even a rational one.
Science is the first to admit it doesn't have all the answers. But religion has no answers whatsoever. Just made up dogmatic crap to appeal to peoples emotions and/or ignorance.
You want faith, go to a church. You want actual science and knowledge, go to a science class!
How are LGBT people not living in the real world that you and I an exhibit? What fantasy world do they live in because my GPS won't take me there?
How does the fact that LGBT exists openly and live their life as they choose negatively affect you in any way? How many years have been taken from your life by Gay Pride events? How many gay couples have knocked on your door asking for your approval of their wedding?
Do feminists, camel jockeys, Ricans, Chinks, Jews, Atheists, Wops, ni**ers(cough-urban youths-cough), hippies, SJW, progressives, and acedemics also bother you to the same extent? Should we all be bleached, taught to speak in a proper midwest accent and forced to attend the church of your choosing? Should women be barefoot, pregnant and tied to either the stove or the bedpost for your approval? Maybe we can abolish the SCOTUS and just have your church elders vote on issues of constitutionality, or maybe we should abolish the Constitution and just have them enforce your version of the Bible on all people of the world as your preferred pulpit pounder believes. If you are nice we can write Donald Trump into a new book of the Bible. "Revelations, Part Deux".
Perrie, I hope you see the obvious sarcasm. No harm was meant but I understand if you delete this. I'll sit behind the woodshed and wait for your arrival.
Can you please give me 5 examples of left-wing government indoctrination.
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
I'll wait for the strawmen.
Homosexual behavior " has been observed in 1,500 species."
Normal: adjective - conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
Seems pretty clear that in the natural world, homosexuality is pretty common and from all accounts has existed within the human species since before recorded history, so one could certainly argue it can be expected in a certain percentage of the populace, thereby making it "normal".
About 10% of the populace are left handed, should we consider all left handed people "abnormal"? Should teachers tell their left handed students they aren't normal and they have to resist their urge to write with their dominant hand? The reality is that used to be the case, ignorant people of faith claimed left handedness was a "sign of the Devil" and some teachers would punish their left handed students when they were caught using their left hands. It's sad that some ignorant people push such idiotic conformity on others in an effort to validate their faith.
I have never, to the best of my knowledge, been negatively affected by bipolar sufferers or other mentally ill people either but they are still memtally ill and require treatment .
You should read what you post before you post it.
That is not proof that psychology is considered a science by many. It is an article by a psychologist who is confronting the academic belief that psychology is a science, despite what biologists, physicists, and geologists believe. The fact that psychological information is gained by using the scientific method means that it is a science. The problem is that psychology is in its infancy because we know very little about the brain and we do not yet have the necessary tools to do research, unlike the tools we have in physics, biology, and geology. Psychology is less than 150 years old so many traditional academic fields still don't accept it. Psychiatry is even younger than psychology and yet it does not have the same academic stigma.
How do LGBT negatively affect you? Do they scare you when they kiss people of the same gender? Were you scarred by episodes of Jerry Springer, Ellen or Phil Donahue?
(sarcasm off)
I understand that some people are afraid of what they do not understand and have a hard time with change, but LGBT people have existed for as long as humans. They are merely more open about being LGBT and refuse to live in the shadows when they exercise the same rights that you and I enjoy. Nobody is trying to redefine your religious rights or force you to believe any different than you do now. Your minster can hate them as much now as he always had because they aren't taking away f your free speech rights by existing in daylight.
Simply treat them as you would want to be treated or that you would others to treat your family and everything will be fine.
The Bible is a religious belief and not a fact. Sin is a concept that is limited to a few religions and not universal. Their existence is not defined by your religious mythology. Your beliefs do not get to determine what is factual. Your religious views do not determine the rights of others or secular constitutional law. The fact that not all Christians sects agree with you seem to be ignored by you and other social conservatives.
You and others rant about the hopelessly small possibility of Sharia law in the US, but you want to do the very same thing by forcing others to live by your interpretation of a religious belief in the US. It is wrong for Muslims to enforce their draconian religious beliefs as the secular law then it is just as wrong for you to attempt to enforce your conservative Christian beliefs as secular law in the US or anywhere else.
If you're Anti Gay OSM Cheer the Frck up
The Bible tells you to Love thy neighbor, and if your neighbor happens to be Xtra Happy
How is it really eaffecting you...
My lack of knowledge has never stopped me from schooling graduates of kinder college
I dig with hydraulic excavators, as well as bury
And when did the bible become the law of the land? We live in a secular society with a secular constitution. No one is forcing you to be gay, so you have no right to go around trying to force anyone else to be straight.
In response to arkpdx:
"I have never, to the best of my knowledge, been negatively affected by bipolar sufferers or other mentally ill people either but they are still mentally ill and require treatment"
Bi-polar disorder and many other forms of mental illness can present real harm to those who suffer from it and others. The only harm gay people suffer is it the hands of ignorant bigots who want to bully and belittle them. Do you consider being left handed a "mental disorder"? It only presents itself in 10% of the populace, similar to the percentage of the population that are born gay, and isn't harmful to anyone, though much like homosexuality, left handedness has at times in our history been maligned and attacked.
Trying to sow confusion in public schools by injecting religious belief in science is unconstitutional. Nobody said that science has all the answers because that would be impossible. The more we learn the more questions are asked based on the new knowledge. Alternatively, religion doesn't have any answers because it simply tells its adherents to believe and have faith in what cannot be proven to exist. Religion is not an answer to anything, except maybe logical thought, equal rights, and a functional frontal cortex. Teaching that "God did it" and "you must believe or burn in Hell" isn't an answer to anything.
Indeed. Religion isn't an explanation for anything. It's a failure to explain. It's an "I don't know" wrapped in a theological package. It's also funny to note that people want evidence or proof of claims made, either by science or in everyday life or such, but they give religion a pass on that.
How have LGBT people affected you by being who they are? At what age and why did you choose your sexual orientation and gender identity?
LGBT people are not mentally ill because being LGBT does not inhibit their ability to function in daily life. They are different from the gender identity and sexual orientation majority but that does not mean that they are mentally ill because of that minority. I have blonde hair and blue eyes, both of which are recessive genes. Am I also mentally ill because I am not among the majority in hair and eye color?
Komatsu, Hitachi, Cat or Liebherr?
Just be glad you were not born a gay left handed ginger a century ago...
But seriously, even though we've gotten past much of the ignorant prejudices of prior generations, there are some who continue to hold onto their bigotry as if clinging to life itself. They're the ones who really need to have their heads examined.
My dad was a lefty and my mom was a ginger. I must take after the mailman or the milkman because UPS didn't exist 50 years ago. There are no blondes in the family but my daughter and myself are both natural blondes. We are also both much taller than average(5-8+)
And when did the schizophrenic, bipolar, obsessive compulsive, or manic depressives choose to be schizophrenic, bipolar obsessive compulsive or manic depressives?
What do you call it when someone rejects the reality of who at what they are and thinks they are something completely different?
Are you going to try and convince us that paedophiles are OK because they did choose to be that way and were born perverts?
How are gay bi and lesbian rejecting who they are, unless you think that we were born just to reproduce raise children and to die? Are heteros who choose not to have kidlets rejecting also who they are? What about people who are androgynous or asexual? Do they also affect you?
Transgender people are being who they are, despite their biological gender. You refuse to understand the psychological concept of gender identity that may be at odds with a person's biological gender. Not all people are as ignorant as you are. How do trans' people affect your life in any way?
Ignorance of human sexuality is your problem and the cure is knowledge. Thankfully you don't need to get the approval of your insurance company for effective treatment and there is no co-pay for either Drs or medication.
LGBT people who live as who they are and love another conceitng adult arent commiting a crime by harming others, unlike pedophiles.
Is that a breed of dog or were you going for melancholia?
Sad...isn't it.
.
On another note, Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness was an album by the Smashing Pumpkins released many moons ago. Not a big fan, bit they had some decent tunes.
I never got into their kind of music, but now I understand your reference.
1) Federally mandated "Sensitivity Training." This is really a category with far more than 5 types.
2) IRS auditing organizations just because they were conservative.
3) Leftist state-run universities standing by idly while violent protests develop over peaceful, but conservative speakers, yet such behavior would never be tolerated in protest of a leftist speaker.
3a) Schools - with apparently no sense of irony at all - promoting the idea that "free speech" is something that should be silenced.
4) Public schools teaching the doctrines of white privilege, multiculturalism, diversity in all things, etc.
5) Teachers just randomly spouting off in class. Examples:
Teacher accused of calling military 'lowest of our low' - CNN Video
OCC student suspended after filming teacher saying Trump’s election was ‘an act of terrorism’
Canadian Student Removed From Class For Speaking Up About Anti-Trump Lecture
Teacher Suspended After Trump References Were Removed From a Yearbook
Professor who tweeted against PC culture is out at NYU
‘To be white is to be racist, period,’ a high school teacher told his class
And, perhaps unsurprisingly, the website Salon is outraged that students record teachers who abuse their position of authority to rant against conservatives.
Don’t tape our teachers: Why surreptitious recording in the classroom isn’t OK
Mind you, I haven't run out of sources. I just want to go to bed. There are plenty more out there.
Poor baby. It must be tough to be a straight white Christian man and suffer from an excess of privilege.
Yeah, because we certainly wouldn't want knowledge to undermine superstition in our secular public schools. Myths and facts should always be taught as equivalent.
You're OK with science educators teaching ancient, non-evidence-based creation stories as if they were somehow on par with modern, evidence-based science? A 'take your pick' kind of thing? Really?
If a religious belief can be undermined by evidence-based science, then what does that say about the belief?
I mean, the whole purpose of science education is to educate students in science, right? If the science conflicts with someone's personal religious beliefs, then so be it. They can wrestle with their unsubstantiated ancient superstitions on their own time. It will force them to really exercise their gray matter, and will do them nothing but good in the long run.
At the end of the day, we want science classrooms to actually be teaching science, don't we? Otherwise what's the point, other than flushing the future down the drain?
And other people have a problem with paying teachers to underme their children’s religious beliefs. Rather than you deciding what everybody else gets to think, the state of Alabama is trying to accommodate both views. I’d be curious in seeing how a teacher actually does it.
Maybe teachers should also teach that the Earth is the center of the universe, since some religions have held that belief.
Maybe they should teach that Atum masturbated existence into...existing.
Maybe, as TiG mentioned, we should consider Vulcan as a truly plausible explanation for Hawaii.
Maybe we should teach that miasmas spread disease, as an equally probable explanation as germ theory.
Or maybe all that shit is ridiculous, and if parents want to send their kids to school and still keep them ignorant, they should send them to religious schools, on their own dime.
Kids are in school to learn facts, not myths. When the facts don't agree with the myths, the facts should win out.
And I assume that view is exactly why Alabama is considering legislation.
No, they're considering the legislation to promote their own religious ideology. There are no facts with creationism.
Teaching facts doesn't undermine religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are not based in fact in the first place, so there is no conflict.
They are teaching science; there is no attempt to undermine anything - just the intent to give the kids the opportunities that comes from a good education. Having an accurate understanding of modern science is vastly superior to walking around accepting demonstrably wrong religious notions from antiquity (selectively interpreted) based on no evidence (and indeed in spite of the evidence).
Young Earth Creationists are a fine contemporary example of this. They teach their kids that the many varied methods of determining the age of the planet, etc. are all wrong and that the age of the Earth is ~6,000 years based on the Bible. Would you have science teachers offer YEC as another option?
Science Teacher : "Science has found that our planet is approximately 4.55 billion years old. Another viewpoint is that the Earth is 6,000 years old based on biblical analysis by Bishop Ussher in the 17th century. You are free to choose what you think is right ".
Seriously?
Another example is the Jehovah Witnesses who refuse to allow their kids to have blood transfusions (even if this means their child will die):
Parents have the right to teach their kids nonsense - and even practice nonsense to the point of compromising the health (and life) of their children. Let's at least preserve the ability of schools to treat secular topics such as science with care and provide the kids with actual facts. They get plenty of nonsense from parents, et. al. outside of school to undermine what they learned in science class.
My x-wife married one of these people. When he floated this idea by me one day, I laughed in his face, assuming he was kidding.. When he didn't laugh, I asked if he really believed that, he said he did then I...
.
Much has been made of the accuracy of carbon dating, but even if it's off by say, 500 million years, it would still scientifically prove the Earth is MUCH older than 6,000 years.
It is estimated that ~10% of the USA believe the Earth is ~6,000 years old.
The left side of the bell curve, an example of Dunning-Kruger or both?
Ugh, what a sad commentary about society or our species as a whole.
If you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, you're probably a Trump supporter.
If you believe the 3% of scientists that doubt man has an effect on climate change over the 97% who don't doubt it, you're probably a Trump supporter.
If you believe public schools should teach "intelligent design" along with actual science, you're probably a Trump supporter.
If you believe saying "Happy Holidays" is an attack on Christianity, you're probably a Trump supporter.
If you believe the constitutions establishment clause gives Christians the right to inject their religion into every aspect of secular society but believe it bans Islam from doing the same, you're probably a Trump supporter.
If you dropped out of high school because you think a higher education is elitist and you'll never need to use calculus later in life, you're probably a Trump supporter.
Cannot disagree with those examples.
That's guaranteed.
As has already been stated by someone else, science teaches that faith should give way to facts. If so, have not used the classroom to undermine their faith? What you appear to be saying is “too bad.” And what they’re saying back to you is “It’s not over.”
Just to be clear, I’m not a creationist. All I said was I didn’t have a problem with a teacher recognizing that faith presents an alternative or complementary view of the world.
An interesting debate is one on “the God Delusion” between Professor Richard Dawkins and Dr. John Lennox, moderated by federal court judge Richard Pryor. Lennox’s view is that faith and science are not as separate as they might appear to be. Dawkins is an atheist. If these two can have intelligent debate on the subject of faith and science, then it can have a place a place in a classroom. It just depends on how it’s handled.
What I said is that science classes should teach science. It is absurd IMO to teach science and then offer a religious viewpoint that contradicts hard science.
Amazing that anyone has to explain this much less debate it.
That is saying quite a bit. A rather hefty proposal worthy of harsh rebuttal.
I would encourage people to watch and even engage in such a debate. There is a major difference IMO between debate and an education curriculum.
Teach science. Offer debate in a debate forum.
Intelligent debate and an education are not mutually exclusive. The purpose of an elementary education should be to give children the basic skills they need to succeed. What people are objecting to is a method of instruction that either deliberately or inherently undermines their faith. I said at the outset that reading from the Bible is problematic. Instead, of turning this into a fight, all teachers have to do is modify their instruction so that they don’t trample on other people’s beliefs by implying that only a fools have faith. This really is simple.
That is correct. My comment encouraged that both be done; there is indeed value in science vs. religion debates. Instead of recognizing that I encouraged the debate you present my comment as if I have argued it must be one or the other. That is not what I wrote.
What I find fascinating is your insistence that religious views be taught as an alternative view to science. That kids should hear 'both sides' of the story as if religious beliefs are in any way comparable to scientific findings of how reality works. Your proposal is akin (IMO) to having a world history class offer Harry Potter fantasy world as another view - inviting the students to choose what they feel is most correct. (Harry Potter stories provide a plausible way in which all the magical lore could actually exist in the modern world but we 'muggles' are simply unaware of it.)
Indeed. Skills and facts. Teaching kids science is proper. Teaching kids religious views as 'another view' of science is the opposite of enabling them to succeed in the modern world.
Some object that science provides children with knowledge inconsistent with their religious views. Sorry. The Earth is not ~6,000 years old, so if a child learns that the Earth is ~4.55 billion years old (with very high confidence) that inconvenient fact is not a result of a science teacher trying to undermine faith. That fact is out there in reality - worldwide even. It is a fact of reality that the child will face the rest of her life.
We are not debating the reading of scripture - this is a new twist. Teaching that, according to the Bible, the Earth is ~6,000 years old is problematic. Teaching that, according to the Bible, the evolutionary sciences are wrong is problematic. Even suggesting to kids that religious view have credence regarding modern knowledge of the natural world is problematic. Science does not declare something true because it believes it true. Science explains based on evidence and disciplined reasoning and continually challenges its own explanations. It is a method based on critical thinking whereas religion is believing (sans evidence) that which others merely claim to be true.
That is not the issue at hand. I agree science teachers should not teach kids that the Bible is nonsense. That is not their role. Their role is to teach kids modern science. How to think critically, engage in the scientific method and understand fundamentals of science. Teach facts and reason. Religious views should never even be mentioned (religion has no role in a science class), much less trampled upon.
Yes it is. Science teachers teach science. Parents (and churches) teach religion - sunday 'school'. Parents who wish to teach religion to their children are free to do so. Parents who wish to confuse their children and hobble them in the real world by telling them to disregard our modern understanding of the natural world via science are (unfortunately) free to do so.
I would have a problem with a teacher who undermines my children's religious beliefs...which is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I want equal time in the classroom.
Do you see how ridiculous this could get? If you feel a teacher is undermining your children's religious beliefs, maybe you should send your kids to a religious school. There are other kids in that classroom besides yours, ya know.
It already is. it was the moment someone decided religious nonsense should be taught in a public school or was on par with actual science.
Public schools aren't to be teaching religious beliefs, especially of one religious sect. Those tax-payer funded schools are to teach facts. If you want your child brainwashed with religious beliefs then send them to Sunday school or home school them.
The federal courts have already ruled that creationism/ID is not to be taught as an alternative to evolution in Kitzmiller v. Dover.
As you know, the believers don’t care any more about your opinion than you care about theirs. The constitutional issue is whether the government has “endorsed” a religious belief under this particular scheme. The issue is not as crystal clear as you think since it took the court in Kitzmiller 140 pages to reach a conclusion. In any event, if this scheme doesn’t work, then I assume that Alabama (and other states) will keep revising it until they find one that does.
Federal District Court decisions are only binding on lower courts in that district. The Kitzmiller case was decided in Pennsylvania, which is in the Third Circuit. Alabama is in the 11th circuit so nothing decided in any court in Pennsylvania or in the Third Circuit is binding on any court in the 11th Circuit or any other court in Alabama (whether state or federal).
The court spoke very slowly so that superstitious dimwits might understand. It could instead have summarily ruled in one sentence and foregone the trial since the legal issues are so very clear.
Ummm.....it was the Establishment clause and existing SCOTUS precedent which caused the court to rule the way it did. I suggest you read the ruling.
Any court which ruled to the contrary would be struck down on appeal but there's no chance that any federal judge today would support Cretinism being taught in public schools.
This isn't my opinion. I am citing the constitutional law as a reason that creationism cannot be taught in public schools as an alternative to biological evolution. There are no facts supporting creationism/ID because it is blatantly teaching Genesis, so it is the state endorsement of a relgious belief that not all Christian sects support. There are no facts to support creationism/Intelligent Design. It is blatantly a religious belief that cannot be taught in public schools without violating the Establishment Clause's separation of church and state. Not even Catholic schools teach creationism in their classroom.
Next time the issue comes up, be sure and share with the court your view that the constitutional issue is so clear that only dimwits would need more than a one-sentence ruling. The only one sentence ruling you’ll see is the one that is directed at you saying “please leave the courtroom.”
A bailiff would escort an unruly person from the court chamber and not a ruling by the judge.
I know exactly how it works but thanks for your “insight.”
The Dover v. Kitzmiller decision is very long and very specific because the judge understood that religious people would look for a loophole, so he was very careful not to leave a possible loophole to be exploited at a later date. The Obergfell v. Hodges decision is the very same with Anthony Kennedy writing a long and detailed majority ruling.
Why do you think that science teachers are trying to convert students by teaching evolution? Are your religious beliefs that weak that teaching science is a threat to them? Are your beliefs also threatened by being taught history or literature that mentions Greek and Roman mythology?
You have it backward. The government has not endorsed any religious belief by teaching empirical science in public school science class. Religion is a belief that is not supported by facts, unlike science that has to be proven before it can be considered an empirical statement of fact. Empirical science is a secular concept that doesn't endorse any form of religion any more than teaching chemistry. Teaching creationism in science class would be an example of the state endorsing a religious belief because that would be an example of state-supported public schools teaching an alternative religious concept that is limited to Protestant Christianity that has no supporting facts.
The court ruled on the facts presented in the case that creationism/Intelligent Design is a religious concept with no supporting empirical facts. You need to read the decision before you try to make up the facts to fit your religious beliefs. The claim that was not proven by either Ken Hamm and Micheal Behe is that irreducible complexity is religious nonsense and not a scientific concept.
Believers cannot reject constitutional law because they disagree with the decision of federal courts.
It was the “endorsement” language under the establishment clause that had to be applied to a particular law. That will be the case in every court challenge. If the Supreme Court decision on which the Pennsylvania district court relied was crystal clear as it pertained to the case before the district court, then it wouldn’t have taken the district court 140 pages to explain why its decision is correct. Maybe you should read it yourself or read it more slowly.
I didn’t say the government endorsed a religious belief by teaching empirical science. What I said is that the court was determine whether the school was “endorsing” religion under the establishment clause.
I didn’t say that the school should teach creationism nor does the Alabama bill say that. All I said was that I have no problem with a teacher mentioning that people can other beliefs based on faith and expressly notes that reading from the Bible is problematic.
I haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about. I know what the case said because I read it. I didn’t challenge a single statement in the decision or the facts on which it’s based nor are there any facts in an Alabama bill that I did, or could, challenge. I didn’t disclose my religious beliefs nor alter anything to fit them. All I’m saying is that a teacher can teach science without implicitly undermining faith and without reading from the Bible (which I have already said is problematic).
I’ve said all I have to say on the subject so I’m leaving the thread.
What relevance does that have to a science class or subject material?
Teaching science does not undermine anyone's faith and neither you nor anyone else have yet to demonstrate otherwise. What's problematic to begin with is the Bill in question allowing creationism to be presented.
The SCOTUS precedents are very clear - Cretinism and other religious nuttery cannot be taught in our secular schools. But the Dover board was falsely claiming that "ID" was not Cretinism, and they falsely claimed that their motives weren't religious. Those are the main reasons Judge Jones chose to hold a trial of fact rather than make summary judgement, but it did allow time for the witnesses to reveal the bad edits the Cretinists had made, like the botched edits of a Cretinist textbook where the religious nuts had replaced "Cretinism" with "intelligent design".........which resulted in the newly coined phrase "cdesign proponentsists" . But the legal issues of whether Cretinism can be taught in public schools and whether Cretinism is religion or science had already been settled long ago.
I hate revisionist idiocy. A students beliefs, religious or otherwise, do not permit them or the teacher to redefine facts to suit their opinions in public schools. A public school is to teach and grade on accepted facts and not the religious beliefs of student, parents or teachers. Creationism is a religious myth that has no business being mentioned in a biology class requirement. If you want to mention it in a mythology elective then do it, alongside the flight of Icarus and the battle of Vandehei by Thor.
If we allow creationist nonsense to be taught in biology should we also allow Southern Baptist kids in American history class to redefine slaves as foreign independent contractors and claim that the civil war was a labor dispute that could have been solved with collective bargaining? Maybe the rise of Nazis in Germany should be called the Trump prequel.
How is teaching facts and knowledge, something that is supposed to be taught in schools, undermining anyone's religious beliefs exactly?
One view is science. The other is religious. Religious belong in a church, not a science classroom.
They won't be able to. At least, not without compromising the Establishment Clause or their own professional credibility.
Sounds like you need to put your kids in a parochial school which your favorite cult runs, not in a secular public school which teaches facts rather than superstition.
How I raise my kid doesn’t have any bearing on whether a bill in Alabama is constitutional.
Lol, the "theory" of creation. Man that idiocy never gets old. It is on the same level of the "theory" of masterbating.
In case people didn't get it, I am saying the two are proven beyond dispute.
I'm not sure what "masterbating" is but you're quite right that Cretinism isn't a theory, it's merely Bronze-age superstition. You'll have to put your kids in a parochial school to learn that sort of loony nonsense.
Catholic schools don't teach cretinist stupidity so you will ned to find an evangelical madrassa if you want your kidlets taught bronze age fundamentalist idiocy.
An interesting debate on “the God Delusion” where a scientist makes the case that faith and science aren’t necessarily separate.
Science classes should teach the methods and findings of scientific inquiry. There is no need for them to attack other methods of learning, like philosophy or religion. There is also no need for teachers or administrators to teach that students should adhere to scientific conclusions at the exclusions of all others.
It is honest and respectful of different methods of thought to simply say that scientific inquiry has revealed certain data and then discuss the conclusions reached by fallible human beings based on that data.
Proper scientific inquiry should always have elements of humility and open-mindedness. In other words, the textbook could be wrong. Pointing at someone's scientific conclusion and insisting it is true and unquestionable for all time is no different than any religion.
Agreed. Science classes should not even mention religion. History classes, by analogy, should not even mention works of fiction.
True. Not the debate, but I do agree with you.
Now, let's address the debate: those who want science classes to teach religion as an alternate view. I say keep religion out of science classes. That simple. Teach the findings of science, the scientific method, etc. If parents want to teach religious-based nonsense such as a 6,000 year old planet then that is (unfortunately) their right. Religious indoctrination is done at home and at church. Leave the school to teach math, science, history, etc. unmolested by religious beliefs.
The best solution is to end the commie based public education system. I have recommended for decades that Christians either home school or attend private schools so they can get a good eduction and not be subjected to brainwashing and political correctness
BTW many Bible literalists like myself see no contradiction with the Book of Genesis and the age of the earth being 4-6 billion years
You and the vast majority of old earth creationists are indeed compatible with science regarding the age of the planet. Those in my example are the YECs who insist the planet is ~6,000 years old based on the analysis of Bishop Ussher in the 17th century.
That established, would you object to a science teacher offering a 4.55 billion year old earth (the most accurate scientific estimate thus far) and then offering as an alternative the YEC 6,000 year old earth so that the children can decide which of the two is more correct?
first of all, remember I oppose Christians attended public schools which eliminates that debate. In home schooling or private schools I would have no problem with both creation position arguments being presented
Sure, let's keep people uneducated and stupid. That makes them easier to control by religion. Of course, the last time there was no educational system, we had the Dark Ages.
Many biblical literalists also subscribe to the young earth creation BS too. Of course, not one biblical literalist can even prove there's a god. So what they say is pretty much meaningless!
Gordy you quoted livefreeordie but replied to me.
How could you support a teacher offering an an alternative to science that the earth might be ~6,000 years old?
See I asked that particular question of you because you clearly do not buy the 6,000 year old earth stuff. Given you recognize how wrong that is I would like to know why you would support teaching kids such nonsense.
Oops, sorry. My mistake.
Even highly-specialized scientists will often pursue a certain line of thought, and explore the implications of certain theory while rejecting others, based on nothing more than intuitive preferences, and their sense of what is elegant and right.
Most people who reject the religion they once accepted will claim to have done so in favor of the reasonable, clear-cut answers provided by logic and science. When asked to explain the existence of the universe, they’ll mention the Big Bang and M Theories; when asked to explain the existence of humans, they’ll mention evolution.
When pressed to explain any of the above, however, they soon realize that they actually understand very little. They were exhibiting blind faith – accepting the theories without comprehending them. If you don’t understand something, yet accept it as the truth, then you’re simply a Believer – and like much of science, you’ll find yourself well within the territory of religion.
Scientists still have to produce evidence to support their positions, assertions, theories, ect. regardless of why they pursue a certain idea.
or because religion has no facts or evidence to support its assertions and claims.
Any good scientist will say something is not known or fully understood.
Theories are accepted or rejected based on the evidence. Faith has nothing to do with it. We have empirical evidence for evolution or the Big Bang. While explanations in greater detail may be lacking, that doesn't negate the validity of the theories or the evidence which supports them. So there is no faith involved.
Once again, it's about evidence. Not understanding something does not mean something is not valid. It simply means it's not fully understood. Religion on the other hand, offers no evidence or proof. It just makes stuff up and passes it off as fact or 'truth." it also conspicuously rejects anything which contradicts it, regardless of any evidence presented. Using religion or mere belief as an explanation for something that is not understood is an exercise in intellectual laziness.
Ignorant. Home schoolers have higher SAT scores and higher college graduation rates
Homeschooled students score about 72 points higher than the national average on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). The average American College Test (ACT) score is 21. The average score for homeschoolers is 22.8 out of a possible 36 points. Homeschoolers are at the 77th percentile on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills.
The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) commissioned a study called the "Homeschool Progress Report 2009." 3 This report did look at demographics. This study found that:
"Homeschoolers are still achieving well beyond their public school counterparts—no matter what their family background, socioeconomic level, or style of homeschooling."
3M Young Scientist Challenge - Two of the 10 finalists in the 2010 and 2008 contests were homeschool students. Homeschoolers made up 20 percent of the finalists. One of the 2009 finalists was a homeschooler, making up 10 percent of the finalists. Only 60% of the 2010 finalists and 50 percent of the 2009 and 2008 finalists attended public schools. 10
USA Mathematical Olympiad - This contest has 12 winners each year. In both 2010 and 2009, a homeschooler was among the winners. So homeschoolers made up 8 percent of the winners both years. Only 7 of the 2009 winners were American public school students (approximately 58 percent), as were 8 of the 2010 winners (approximately 66 percent). 11
Homeschooled children have higher graduation rates, more social prowess
Of homeschooled children, 66.7 percent have been found to graduate from a four-year college, whereas those who went to a public school had a 57.5 percent graduation rate.(1) The finding came as a result of a 2009 University of St. Thomas study that analyzed homeschool students' academics versus those in more traditional educational systems. Not only was there a higher college graduation rate, but compared to public, private and Catholic schooling, those who were homeschooled were found to have the highest GPA and also outperformed in college preparedness tests for reading, science and English.(2)
Because I believe parents, not the state should control what their children learn
though I disagree with YEC, believing it will do nothing to prevent a child developing the skills need to have a career, marry and raise a family. Nor will it prevent them from being a positive contributor to society and especially in their local community
Your religous is science, you accept what it says today with blind faith yet will disregard it when it says someting different.
The Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Aztecs – all of them had creation myths, probably invented around a fire. All of them took their creation myths seriously. Now, of course, we have science to explain our origins.
You know what its latest version of this story is? In the beginning, there were giant membranes. These membranes touched each other, triggering something called the “Big Bang”. Sure.
I didn't say anything about homeschooling per se. But homeschooling is not feasible for most parents.
So no standards then, eh?
Teaching kids religious BS over actual science does not do them a service, especially where scientific knowledge is required or expected.
An oxymoron.
Wrong! I accept or reject what it says based on the evidence presented. No faith needed or required.
And most creation myths were probably different or variations on a theme. That doesn't mean creation MYTHS (emphasis on myth) are valid or true in any sense!
Yay science. I'll take science over myth any day.
I have not heard that one. What is your source? I am familiar with the Big Bang, and it has empirical evidence to support it.
I do too. If a parent wants to teach nonsense to their children then they should do it at home and not lobby to have said nonsense taught in schools.
Amazing that you see no problems in modern times with children being indoctrinated with the belief that the planet is 6,000 years old, that human being coexisted with dinosaurs, that the continental plates swiftly separated after Noah's flood and then slowed to a crawl, that the speed of light was actually substantially faster in the past and it too slowed down making it look as though distant galaxies took more then 6,000 years to spread out so far, etc. You see no problem encouraging young minds to blindly accept what they are told - even utter nonsense - rather than engage in and develop their critical thinking skills ?
Visualize a classroom where a science teacher explains the geological formation of the earth and its inhabitants over 4.55 billion years and then switches gears and offers, as something to actually take seriously, the belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that all science to the contrary is simply wrong.
Imagine your own kids being taught this in school. And you are okay with it??
Not all home schooled kids come from religious families.
Your science of today may prove to be a myth in the future. You'll accept whatever the belief is today without question.
It's not myth if there is evidence or facts to support it. Religion deals in myths.
Repeating that tripe does not make you right. Especially when you're already wrong!
I didn't say they did.
The Bible has been nothing but a myth for 2500+ years. Science, on the other hand, is self-correcting by its concept of being antagonistic. The ultimate basis of scientific fact proves the claim in a way that the finding can reproduce by others. Faith and belief get in the way of empirical science and are surely weeded out, to be replaced by facts.
Religion piles BS higher and higher until they collapse on itself with time and the forward march of knowledge.
The Jewish god is being proven to be a myth today, so why should a known myth be taught in US schools?
Good article below about how the ancient Israelites created their god, YHWH.
Who cares what the bible says? not everyone believes in or follows your bible, nor are they required to. If you want to believe the nonsense that homosexuality is a sin, that's your prerogative. But it only applies to you or other like believers. It certainly doesn't apply to actual science or our laws.
Science will bend to accommodate modern trends.
If you think scientists are immune to the pressure to conform to public opinion – think again. I am not even going to consider the announcements made by scientists under totalitarian regimes (such as racist “conclusions”), because I consider these to be forced aberrations.
Instead I will use the scientific approach to homosexuality. It was included in the list of personality disorders of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM) up to its 1973 edition. It was then removed – only to be replaced a year later by a close variant, before being removed entirely in 1986. Upon what evidence rested the changing decisions to include or exclude homosexuality among mental disorders? Public sentiment, backed by convenient “empirical evidence”, played a leading role.
Science "bends" to what the evidence shows.
I cannot speak for such regimes. Fortunately, science here follows the scientific method.
Homosexuality was removed as a mental disorder because there never was any evidence to support that it was a disorder to begin with.
There's no evidence homosexuality isn't a mental disorder. I remind you it was consider to be one up until 1973 it only changed because of politcal pressure from the left. I'm not saying it is just telling why it was removed as a mental dosorder.
By that logic, there's no evidence that being left handed isn't a mental disorder either. It doesn't work that way. Generally speaking, if you're going to make an assertion, there needs to be evidence to support it.
That's a common misconception, and otherwise wrong! Homosexuality was removed because it was never proven to be a mental disorder to begin with. There was no evidence to support any assertion that homosexuality was a mental disorder.
Bullshit. It was changed due to psychiatry's improved understanding of human sexuality. In fact, the medical world in general has slowly, gradually liberated homosexuality from hypocritical political/societal/religious bludgeoning it had endured for so long and put it into the behavioral science context where it belonged all along.
Correct...and....I used to teach medical language so...a block of instruction is in order..
sin is tral
Don't pray in our schools and we promise not to think in your church.
This bill perfectly represents the rightwing view toward fact and science and entirely explains why rightwingers are incapable of understanding either of those concepts. If one's grown up being taught that your beliefs are just the same as facts and then spend one's entire adult life reinforcing that cockamamie idea then, of course, one would be outraged by being constantly bombarded by facts and scientific evidence that they are totally incapable of understanding much less to tolerate.
Creationists should be against this, if creation is presented and compared to evolution objectively and fairly, without religious threats of damnation, going to hell or being put out of the church, evolution will convince most people
They are undermining their own position and it is funny
Yeah, but they see it as a way to get their foot in the door. They don't really have any intention of information being presented fairly and without bias, as they claim.
Yes, what you're referring to would be acceptable. Culture and religion are intertwined, and there's no way to study culture and history without mentioning religion.
Putting forth religion as a plausible explanation for our existence is not acceptable.