Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

I notice that only one of us has quoted James Madison, and it isn't you.James Madison was protesting against the idea that taxpayers should pay just three cents each towards the teaching of religious views.As a result, "the people through their delegates" passed the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, in which they declared it to be "sinful and tyrannical" to make taxpayers pay for the teaching of religious opinions, even those opinions that they themselves agreed with. It is far from impossible. Then as now, Christians were alert to the dangers of the State elevating one particular sectarian viewpoint over others.When the Arkansas legislature tried to get creationism into public schools, the plaintiffs opposing this move in the case of McClean v. Arkansas included:* Reverend William McLean, a United Methodist minister.
* Bishop Kenneth Hick, of the Arkansas Conferences of the United Methodist Church
* The Right Reverend Herbert A. Donovan of the Episcopal Diocese of Arkansas
* The Most Reverend Andrew Joseph McDonald, Catholic Bishop of Little Rock
* Bishop Frederick C. James of the African Methodist Episcopal Church or Arkansas
* The Reverend Nathan Porter
* The Reverend George W. Gunn, minister of the Pulaski Heights Presbyterian Church in Little Rock
* Dr. Richard B. Hardie, Jr., minister of the Westover Hills Presbyterian Church in Little Rock
* The Reverend Earl B. Carter, minister of the United Methodist Church and program director of the North Arkansas Conference of the United Methodist Church
* The Reverend George Panner, minister of the United Methodist Church and program director of the Little Rock Conference of the United Methodist church.
* Dr. John P. Miles, minister of St. James United Methodist Church in Little Rock and vice-chair of Americans United for Separation of Church and State in Arkansas.
* Rev. Jerry Canada, minister of the United Methodist Church and editor of The Arkansas MethodistNow, will you tell me that it is "impossible" that these three bishops and other clergy were opposed to teaching creationism in public schools? Only it happened. And the reason why is obvious --- when the state begins elevating the dogmas of some sects over the dogmas of others, who knows where that's going to end?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Nothing to do with ideas about science.

---

In fact the battle over creationism in schools has focussed very heavily on the science curriculum.

quote:

---

Creationism is banned as the truth or a option for truth because of a law against the state supporting a religion.

---

It is certainly forbidden to teach Creationism as true because that would have no purpose other than advancing the beliefs of particular sects. However, there might be religious classes where it might be considered an "option for truth". But as far as I know, nobody has made the attempt to produce such a curriculum.

quote:

---

My point is that in the censorship, logically, the state is supporting a opinion on religion. its saying its false. This because its saying its teaching the truth on origin subjects.

---

Of course you are referring to science lessons and it would be absurd to say that the content of science lessons has "nothing to do with ideas about science". So we have a valid secular purpose - teaching science - and the relevant science disagrees with creationism. Thus there is no legal problem with the curriculum at all.

What you don't seem to be able to grasp Robert is there are many creation theories from other religions, if you teach one ,then why not the others? I know our founding fathers got it right the first time, separation of church and state is clearly the only way to handle this issue.I understand your bias being a christian, and knowing you are right, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. This makes you narrow-minded and not capable of objectivity in this issue.I wonder how you would feel if Hindu was the dominant religion in USA and they were pushing their creation story to be taught in schools? How would it feel if your were in the minority with no lobbying power, no expensive lawyers being paid out of the collection plates, and someother creation story was the one being pushed on our schools?

First, you are as usual, either ignorant of the law, too dumb to understand the law or willfully misrepresenting what the law says.There is NO law that says public schools cannot teach material that goes against some religion.In fact, the law says that the public schools cannot even consider whether or not something is counter to some religion.Neither God nor either of the two mutually exclusive Genesis myths are censored and to make that claim is simply a falsehood.Your problem is that you know that when the kids find out that they have been lied to on those areas that are easy to check, things like the fact that there was no Biblical Flood, that the earth is old, that evolution is fact, that they are simply primates and descended from the same common ancestor as the Chimps and Bonobos, they will realize that they cannot believe a word you have said about those things that are not easy to check.Edited by jar, : . --> ,

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This is because such teachings serve no secular purpose in science education. If creationists were able to amass scientific evidence behind their claims then creationism would serve a secular purpose in science education. It is not the fault the government that creationists have failed to do the science. If that were true then there would still be slavery and women could not vote. We live in the year 2011. The Constitution has always censored what the government is allowed to do and not do. That is the whole point.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

We are not talking about Option Class. We are talking about Science Class. If you can't show that creationism is science then you have proven our point.

I think that what you and a lots of people are missing in this thread is that Robert doesn't even want to teach 2+2 = 4 or even that the Earth is spherical. What he is in fact advocating is abject ignorance for everyone. He must be aware that by destroying education, people will be easier to fool and convert for his own benefit (or his religion's benefit). His desire has nothing to do with education but is purely for his own gain but what he is missing is that it is thanks to scientific education that he is able to live in the comfort of a modern country instead of the misery of a 3rd world country. He doesn't seem to be pushing for his religion to be taught (even though it would be a bonus for him), he wishes nothing to be taught in order to be able to cheat people later on.In short, he's confident that he's the best conman out there but given his performance in this thread, I feel that his confidence is misplaced.

Whatever merit your suggestion might have, it's clear that it is not the law in the United States. In 1968, the Supreme Court in Epperson v. Arkansas, held: Thus, not only is there nothing wrong with teaching science that contradicts a religion, it's unconstitutional to refuse to teach science just because that science contradicts a religion.Edited by subbie, : Fix linky thing

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

I'm just making a logical point.
i'm just saying the law, used to censor creationism, means indeed any idea opposing or proposing religion must be banned.
so if a religious group says the earth is flat that it must be illegal to teach otherwise. otherwise the state is saying that religion is wrong.
This is your law.
In fact its none existent and a dumb invention from the middle 1900's to ban creationism on the intent of 1700's constitution creating American settlers.

Your wrong. Madison was describing the delegates being the voice of the people on the constitution on the uSA. nOt about taxes only.aMEN about it being a bad idea to elevate one sect above another. This was not just not to elevate above but to avoid diminishment below. In banning creationism the state is making a sect below.
no way around it here.
if the state banns a opinion then its a state opinion thats its wrong IF the state is discussing a subject whereupon that opinion is relevant.
Why is my reasoning wrong here???

Its cases like this that make my case.
AMEN and fine about it being illegal to ban evolution because it contradicts religion. Otherwise one would be supporting a religious viewpoint as a state opinion.
Yet likewise banning creationism is illegal, by same law , since it means the state is making a opinion on God or Genesis.
They back then were simply stop censorship one way. yet this law only has legitimacy if it stops the censorship both ways.

No. No it doesn't. The case law is quite clear. You can teach anything, whether or not it conflicts with some daft religion, so long as there is a clear secular purpose in doing so. That is the law. Which it is perfectly entitled to do, because there is a secular purpose in doing so, namely teaching children what shape the earth actually is. That is the law.

Actually, what Madison wrote is what I quoted him as writing, not some stuff you've made up in your head. For the n^th time, because you're ignoring the concept of secular purpose.Do you really suppose it was Madison's intent that the existence of flat-earth sects should prevent (for example) the US Navy from using and publishing charts based on spherical geometry?If so, he could have said so, couldn't he? Can you quote me anything from any of the founders suggesting that it was their intent that religious folks should be able to play dog-in-the-manger in this way?

quote:

---

I'm just making a logical point.

---

Logical is not the word I would use to describe it. Ignorant, for instance, would be far better.

quote:

---

i'm just saying the law, used to censor creationism, means indeed any idea opposing or proposing religion must be banned.

---

There is no law used to censor creationism. Creationists are perfectly free to promote their views in the same way that any other religious group may do so. They are simply forbidden from abusing government positions or powers to do so.Furthermore your interpretation of this law is hopelessly wrong. The government may take actions that in fact hinder - or benefit - religion so long as they have a valid secular purpose which wholly justifies their action.

quote:

---

This is your law.
In fact its none existent and a dumb invention from the middle 1900's to ban creationism on the intent of 1700's constitution creating American settlers.

---

Again, this is ignorant. The Bill of Rights dates to the 1700s, and the first Amendment was interpreted by Jefferson and Madison - who had a great deal to do with writing it - in much the way that the courts interpret it today (and interpretation of the law is the province of the courts). In the courts a key precedent was a ruling against Mormon polygamy - in 1879 (Reynolds v. United States) which stated that the Mormon belief in polygamy was not sufficient to overturn a Federal law banning it.

Wow, stupid and illiterate, all rolled up into one. Epperson says absolutely nothing to support your position, either in the part that I quoted or any place else. To repeat, whatever merit your ideas have, they are contradicted by what the U.S. Supreme Court says. Again, a really, really interesting idea, but nothing to do with the law. Epperson wasn't a censorship case, it was a First Amendment Establishment Clause Case.Of course, it's entirely possible that I'm wasting my time, arguing with a brick wall. Your response, if any, to this will answer that question.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist