Alas, poor Ohio .... EvC related news

Now you are treading on thin ice, because who defines religious material? You? Me? The left? The right? The creationists? The evolutionists? The christian right? The christian left? The agnostics? The athiests? The anti-theists? The liberals? The moderates? The conservatives? Who?Because there is no mention of a "god", it should not, and can not, be classified as religious material or else you open the door for the creationists/id'ers to make the same claim about the theory of evolution, that it is just another persons religion, dealing with the appearance and subsequant existance of mankind, and thereby should not be allowed in the classroom. Carerful, careful, careful. Could be another pandora's box.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

The dictionary huh?
______________________________________________________________________
Religion
SYLLABICATION: religion
NOUN:
1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
______________________________________________________________________
Definition #3 could be perceived by some to apply to Darwin as the spiritual leader of all those who are adherents of the theory of evolution.Definition #4 can quite easily be applied to the theory of evolution, as the teaching of the theory of evolution is definitely a "cause", the acceptance of the theory of evolution is definitely a "principle", and the proponents of teaching the theory of evolution only, working diligently to promote it while working just as diligently to prohibit the teaching of any opposing view is definitely an "activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion".So, according to your argument, the theory of evolution should not be allowed to be taught in the classroom because the dictionary classifies it as a "religion".[crashfrog: You honestly think ID doesn't make reference to God?]Please show me where in the material allowed by the Ohio board of education, there is a reference to a god, any god. Reference, not inference please. Even the theory of evolution infers a creator, though that creator can not be viewed as an entity, but rather as an event of unknown cause that eventually led to the appearance of life, and it is that appearance of life that makes the theory of evolution viable.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

It's still would be constitutional, and I believe that is what I said at first, which you contradicted! But that should settle this little disagreement on constitutional rights. Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

So obviously you do not believe evolution happened, you don't value the theory of evolution, and you don't practice anything even remotely related to the sciences. You just keep on telling yourself that and someday you may actually convince someone, perhaps even yourself.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

You should try to do a more thorough job at reading all of my posts on a given subject before making such silly statements.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

Or in this case, the thread.Cheers

I hope this helps to clarify things. The discussion had moved from the authority of the Ohio board of education to decide science curriculum into the realm of what is and is not constitutional, namely, majority rule. jar's contention was that majority of public opinion did not matter when it came to the u.s. constitution. At which point I responded..... And then posted the following..... To which jar replied..... To which I replied..... So you can hopefully understand why I am a bit perplexed that you were unable to follow along with the discussion. Any previous discussion of hypothetical amendments had nothing to do with the constitutionality of majority rule, which as you have just read, jar said was unconstitutional.My posting of article 5 of the constitution settled the disagreement of whether majority rule was constitutional or not, which it most surely is. But the real beauty of article 5 is that a minority of the populace can still win out if they are able to convince a majority in the senate & congress, along with a majority of the states, to agree on an issue even when the majority of the overall populace is against it.We the people, have chosen to elect representatives to "represent" us and for the most part they do just that because of their strong desire to be re-elected to another term in office, and they make decisions for us based upon the constitutional requirement of majority rule as stated in article 5 of the constitution.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

Hi schrafinator I am afraid you may have misunderstood what I was saying to froggy.crashfrog had stated..... Now while I can accept that honest evolutionists are always willing to amend the theory of evolution based upon new discoveries, crashfrogs contention of being "ready", "willing", and "eager" to toss it on the scrapheap in the face of disconfirming evidence, (is disconfirming even a word? I don't believe that it is but please correct me if I am wrong.), seems most disingenuous.Ready? Yes, quite possibly I think we must remain so to be perceived as truly honest and in search of the truth.Willing? Maybe so, but most definitely with a fair bit of reluctance and trepidation.Eager? Hell no!The first step in abandoning the theory of evolution would be one of tremendous hesitation, not eagerness. Besides, crashfrog never offered an example of exactly what that disconfirming evidence would consist of, (still find it difficult to accept that as a legitimate term so help me here if you can), and I seriously doubt scientists would simply abandon the theory of evolution in the face of any single piece of strong contrary evidence.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

Actually I wouldn't, unless it was something totally mind-blowing, say like some actual creator entity like thing showing up on earth, slapping us all upside the head and saying to us, "What the hell were you thinking!" Uh, yeah! Duh! Again, uh, yeah! Duh! Seriously though, it would require some tremendously earth shaking revelations for the theory of evolution to be replaced by something else.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

Well, for one thing, you won't find alot of scientists out there working to replace the theory of evolution with something else even when they are confronted with a virtually undeniable sense of design in everything. You will, on the other hand, find a plethora of scientists working diligently to support and sustain the theory of evolution. Even the myriad of scientists who have made open statements regarding the overwhelming sense and indication of design that they see throughout the universe are not abandoning the theory of evolution for intelligent design. I see the debate on the origins of life eventually progressing into one of intelligent design(creation) vs unintelligent design(evolution).Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

So in your opinion, does design demand a designer?Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!A high number of scientists disagree with you because, unlike you, they understand that you don't have to know or have any knowledge of the designer in order to detect and study the design.
(partially borrowed comment)Did I mention that you're wrong?Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

Pay no attention to the frog, er, man behind the curtain.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

And then in message 84 of this thread; Well let's see if the facts support your claim of superior knowledge.
My guess is that the facts do "not" support your bold assertion of superior knowledge concerning the Constitution of the United States of America!Let's take a good look at the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, just to see how wrong you truly are. Well, it does make it crystal clear that Congress, in making a law respecting an "establishment" of religion, would be in violation of the Constitution. It also makes it crystal clear that Congress, in making a law prohibiting the "free exercise thereof" concerning said religion, would again be in violation of the Constitution. Furthermore, it also makes crystal clear that Congress, in making a law abridging the "freedom of speech", which must necessarily include the "religious freedom of speech", would be in violation of the Constitution.Or is it your contention that "religious freedom of speech" is not protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America? Welcome nexusjournal.org - BlueHost.comNow it would seem that if all three branches of our Fereral Government recognize that the acknowledgement of god is "not" a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, that you would be able to recognize this as well. So, quite obviously, you do "not" know as much about the Constitution as you think you do.Or is it also your contention that our officials in all three branches of our Federal Government do not understand, and are in violation of, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?I guess those of you who champion the machinations of that anti-theist, anti-American organizaton known as the "ACLU", aka the "Atheists Communist Liberals Union, could always join them in filing suits against all three branches of our Federal Government for daring to mention "god" in their official sessions of their respective branches of our Federal Government.I suppose you could always attempt to convince a super majority of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution, and then convince a super majority of the states in the Union to ratify said amendment to the Constitution, such amendment stating, in effect and cause, that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is duly nullified and made void.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

You may want to try posting a better link that actually leads to the story. Such as.....This reference to "the lord" is a step in the right direction, albeit an extremely small one considering the venue involved. However, this does not address the issue I raised regardng the aclu challenging the acknowledgement of god by the legislative and judicial branches of our federal government during their opening proceedings. Could it be due to the fact that there are not yet enough atheistic communist liberals on the supreme court for the aclu to have even the most remote chance of success in such an endeavor? That would be a big yes!

​

Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM