Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

Dr Adequate writes:If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely.

If you had nothing more to add than simply repeat your original point, you could have refrained from replying at all.

Dr Adequate writes:I supposed that you had not understood my original point, and needed it explaining to you again. If it is simply the case that you object to my point but can't think up any counter-argument, I'm fine with that too.

If you are having trouble understanding my counter-argument, perhaps you need to read it again more carefully.

Dr Adequate writes:If you mean post #293, it bears no relation whatsoever to any statement that I made, and I am at a loss to think why you thought it was a reply to my post.You were wrong in the first place, and then you were wrong again, but the way in which you were wrong in the second place does not seem to support the way in which you were wrong in the first place.

I would suggest that fruitful discussion would be more likely in the future if instead of simply telling me I'm wrong, you'd actually explain why you think I'm wrong.

And as I thought I made clear, the fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid is a result of observation. Science is much more than just observation.

ringo writes: The point of the Establishment Clause is to prevent the doctrines of one sect from being placed above the doctrines of other sects - equality of religion. The application of that clause by the courts excludes all religious doctrines from public schools.Science itself tries to exclude falsehoods from the science classroom, regardless of whether those falsehoods are Christian doctrines or not.What we're talking about here is an attempt by some Christian sects to have their doctrines taught as science, excluding the opinions/doctrines of other Christian and non-Christian sects. That is what violates the Establishment Clause.

The establishment clause is simply to protect religion from state interference ...

Anyays they never meant schools were included in the "state". They are just paid for by the state. So are Army chaplins.

Dr Adequate writes:But it's both, don't you see? If there was any indication that creationism was true, then there would be a legitimate secular purpose in teaching it, and you could.On the other hand, it is only possible to find it unconstitutional because it is not merely an error but also a religiously motivated error --- you couldn't use the same laws to prevent people from teaching (for example) Holocaust denial.

dwise1 writes:Actually, the law is saying that they cannot teach religious teaching because that would be an establishment of religion by the state. The question of whether or not those religious teachings are true is immaterial and is not addressed. IOW, the state does not state that those religious are false, just that the state is prohibited from teaching them and most definitely is prohibited from determining which religious teachings should be taught, since such a determination would surely be an establishment of religion by the state.The public schools do not teach that the Bible is false, nor does science teach that, nor does the science classroom. Rather, it is the creationists who teach that science makes the Bible false. The creationists accomplish this by teaching that if the universe is as it actually is, then the Bible is a lie and God either does not exist or is a Liar who must not be worshipped -- eg, John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR -- arguably the creators of "creation science") stating "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning." (at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism). Then, even without any knowledge of what the creationists have done, all science needs to do is show how the universe is indeed as it actually is (eg, that it is very much older than 10,000 years) and by the implacable logic of creationism, the Bible and God have been disproven.The problem is not science nor science education (well, there are problems in science education that need to be solved), but rather the problem is creationism. Creationism needs to stop basing their faith on contrary-to-fact claims. Creationism needs to stop basing the truth of the Bible on contrary-to-fact claims. Creationism needs to stop lying to its followers.