Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17919
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 406 of 609 (610414)
03-29-2011 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 405 by NoNukes
03-29-2011 5:23 PM


Re: Puzzled
quote:
Simplistic maybe, but perhaps supportable in an argument.
It definitely overstates the importance of the courts. If the courts were solely bound by previous decisions, new legislation could never take effect. Nor is precedent taken as an absolute rule, nor are court decisions ever interpreted as making laws retroactive (a clear injustice, which would necessarily follow if the courts alone made law).
To put everything on a court decision is simply wrong.
quote:
Principles aren't laws and you've agreed that the law allowed states to act against those principles
Again this is simply narrowing the questions before us and ignoring an important point by doing so. If the principles go back to the Founding fathers then upholding them can be argued as a perfectly good, even patriotic thing to do. Remember that even a less incorrect version of the argument has to argue that the verdict was improper and wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2011 5:23 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by NoNukes, posted 03-30-2011 6:40 AM PaulK has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4624 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(1)
Message 407 of 609 (610437)
03-29-2011 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by Dr Adequate
03-26-2011 3:37 AM


The law is the law.
It clearly is used to ban creationism on the concept that religion can not be supported by the state. Yet likewise the state can't oppose religion.
This because the claim is that the constitution demands a separation of church and state. Not a separation of state FROM church but a separation from both interfering with each other.
If they break this by some invented idea of a secular point allows state opposition to religious doctrines then likewise back at them.
They can't oppose creationism just because its religious. In fact creationism purpose is just as secular as any. Its telling the truth on origins. That it bumps into religion is also beside the point.
However it still comes back that a law is being invoked to ban one side while in fact the law demands both sides be banned if its of any substance in being a law.
It all demonstrates that its a false law invented in the 1900's.
its impossible to logically allow it to follow its logic.
So they tamper enough to preserve what they really want.
One way censorship.
Sorry but the law is the law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-26-2011 3:37 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Coyote, posted 03-29-2011 10:41 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 413 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-30-2011 12:26 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 420 by Taq, posted 03-30-2011 11:42 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4624 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(1)
Message 408 of 609 (610439)
03-29-2011 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Dr Adequate
03-26-2011 3:45 AM


Again. Its not me saying this law exists. its your side. I'm pointing out the illogic of it to point out it never existed. Its a 1900's invention. Nothing to do with the 1700;.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-26-2011 3:45 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-30-2011 12:21 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2362 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 409 of 609 (610440)
03-29-2011 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by Robert Byers
03-29-2011 10:35 PM


Religion in the Science Forum
You have made these same claims over and over and over.
You have been corrected time and again.
You clearly are not reading the responses, or are just ignoring them.
It seems that you are not here to debate, but to preach. And you are preaching a narrow interpretation of one particular religion in the Science Forum--where it doesn't belong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Robert Byers, posted 03-29-2011 10:35 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4624 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(1)
Message 410 of 609 (610443)
03-29-2011 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by NoNukes
03-27-2011 10:29 AM


This is fine for details but misses the great legal point I'm talking about.
Its about the establishment clause or separation concept in the law being used to censor God and Genesis as options for origins in public schools.
They are saying its constitutionally illegal for the state to allow creationism as a option in origin subjects .
I argue that since origin subjects in schools are taught from a position of accurate conclusions and processes to those conclusions then in FACT the state is making a opinion that some religious doctrines are false.
This by teaching opposite ideas to Genesis and second by banning genesis.
The state is not neutral here on conclusions touching on religion.
Therefore its breaking the very law it invokes to ban creationism.
no one here has made a case to me of why my reasoning is wrong.
I predict my reasoning will become the idea that overthrows the present censorship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2011 10:29 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by bluescat48, posted 03-30-2011 1:31 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 415 by subbie, posted 03-30-2011 1:57 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 416 by PaulK, posted 03-30-2011 2:17 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 417 by frako, posted 03-30-2011 4:21 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 419 by NoNukes, posted 03-30-2011 7:22 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 423 by Meddle, posted 03-30-2011 3:46 PM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4624 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(1)
Message 411 of 609 (610446)
03-29-2011 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by Jon
03-27-2011 11:31 PM


Jon writes:
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???
LOL. How is the opinion of the Founding Fathers at all relevant?
Jon
It isn't a few men.
The founders were the delegates that ratified and gave force and legitimacy to the constitution. these delegates were delegated as speaking for the peiople.
So the original intent of the constitution on teaching origins is the most important point.
they invoke the constitution to ban creationism.
I insist the very Protestant yanks and Southerners had no such intent.
its hogwash from the 1900's to ban ideas they didn't want taught in schools by aggressive legislatures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Jon, posted 03-27-2011 11:31 PM Jon has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 412 of 609 (610459)
03-30-2011 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 408 by Robert Byers
03-29-2011 10:37 PM


Again. Its not me saying this law exists. its your side.
You are a liar.
It is you who have repeatedly claimed that the law prohibits round-earth teaching.
It is I who have said repeatedly that it does not.
This crazy imaginary law exists only in your head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by Robert Byers, posted 03-29-2011 10:37 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 413 of 609 (610460)
03-30-2011 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 407 by Robert Byers
03-29-2011 10:35 PM


It clearly is used to ban creationism on the concept that religion can not be supported by the state. Yet likewise the state can't oppose religion.
The state can teach or endorse a view contrary to the dogma of any religion or sect so long as there is a clear secular purpose in doing so.
This is the law. This is not the crazy imaginary law that you've made up in your head, but it is the actual law.
However it still comes back that a law is being invoked to ban one side while in fact the law demands both sides be banned if its of any substance in being a law.
No it doesn't. The crazy imaginary made-up law in your head demands that. The actual law does not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Robert Byers, posted 03-29-2011 10:35 PM Robert Byers has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4446 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 414 of 609 (610464)
03-30-2011 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by Robert Byers
03-29-2011 10:48 PM


I predict my reasoning will become the idea that overthrows the present censorship.
The point is there is no censorship. Creation is not science and therefore does not belong in science classes, whether that creation is Judeo-Christian, Mayan, Greek, Roman, Chines, Hindu or any other creation myth,. Creation can be taught where in belongs, in a course of comparative religions.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Robert Byers, posted 03-29-2011 10:48 PM Robert Byers has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1511 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 415 of 609 (610465)
03-30-2011 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by Robert Byers
03-29-2011 10:48 PM


This is fine for details but misses the great legal point I'm talking about.
You're not talking about a great legal point. You're talking nonsense.
Its about the establishment clause or separation concept in the law being used to censor God and Genesis as options for origins in public schools.
Yes, because there's no scientific evidence for either one, so neither belongs in science class.
They are saying its constitutionally illegal for the state to allow creationism as a option in origin subjects .
No, so far all they have said is that it's unconstitutional in science classes. I really have no idea what you mean by "origin subjects." That's usually an IDiot code phrase for anything that contradicts Genesis, but I'm not inclined to speculate on your meaning.
I argue that since origin subjects in schools are taught from a position of accurate conclusions and processes to those conclusions then in FACT the state is making a opinion that some religious doctrines are false.
Schools teach science. As I showed you above, the Supreme Court has ruled that the mere fact that science might teach a subject that contradicts some religion is no reason to ban that subject. You have not responded to that, but simply parrot back the same gibberish over and over again. As has been pointed out to you, this is not debating; this is preaching.
This by teaching opposite ideas to Genesis and second by banning genesis.
This is not English. I'd suggest more ESL classes.
The state is not neutral here on conclusions touching on religion.
Other than your own peculiar opinion, do you have any authority to support this claim?
Therefore its breaking the very law it invokes to ban creationism.
Just in case you might still be reading, I'll repeat the question. Other than your own peculiar opinion, do you have any authority to support this claim?
no one here has made a case to me of why my reasoning is wrong.
Here's a suggestion. It's best not to review a thread by reading only your own posts in it. Of course, if you're only reading your own posts, you won't read this one. What a conundrum!
Not only have you not provided any reasoning, everyone here has made a case showing why you are hopelessly wrong.
I predict my reasoning will become the idea that overthrows the present censorship.
I predict that you will never understand or substantively respond to anything that anyone says here, and that this thread will soon be closed for lack of any legitimate discussion.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Robert Byers, posted 03-29-2011 10:48 PM Robert Byers has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17919
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 416 of 609 (610466)
03-30-2011 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by Robert Byers
03-29-2011 10:48 PM


quote:
This is fine for details but misses the great legal point I'm talking about.
There's a reason for that. NoNukes was trying to find something you got RIGHT, which is why your "legal point" got left out.
But thanks for confirming that I was right to insist that I had adequately dealt with your actual argument.
quote:
no one here has made a case to me of why my reasoning is wrong.
That's just not true. As has been pointed out more than once the government IS permitted to take actions that happen to hinder religion if there is a valid secular purpose for their actions. We've got sound reasoning as to why that should be the case and legal precedents to back it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Robert Byers, posted 03-29-2011 10:48 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by Robert Byers, posted 04-05-2011 12:53 AM PaulK has replied

frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 417 of 609 (610467)
03-30-2011 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by Robert Byers
03-29-2011 10:48 PM


This by teaching opposite ideas to Genesis and second by banning genesis.
Im so sorry to disappoint you but genesis, creationism, ID,are not accurate explanations of REALITY based on evidence and experimentation. EVOLUTION is!
It is not the states fault that your religions views on "origins" are completely wrong, and if you want the state to teach inaccurate representations of reality, then why stop with creationism demand that they teach Intelligent pulling side by side with gravity, demand that they teach the existence of "cold" particles re add them to the periodic table of elements next to the theory that cold is the absence of heat, teach the flath earth theory also in geography, teach that sin causes sickens alongside medicine .....
If creationism has the right to be taught in science classes then so do all of these theories and more, and if evolution has no right to be taught in science classes then so does no other science field.
Do you really want to live in a country where doctors cant be taught medicine, or where doctors can instead of the medicine you need prescribe you a visit to the priest to repent and say you will be all better afterwards if god wants it or if he does not youl die.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Robert Byers, posted 03-29-2011 10:48 PM Robert Byers has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 418 of 609 (610468)
03-30-2011 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 406 by PaulK
03-29-2011 6:06 PM


Re: Puzzled
PaulK writes:
It definitely overstates the importance of the courts. If the courts were solely bound by previous decisions, new legislation could never take effect.
True, but that did not happen in this case. After the 14th Amendment was ratified, and the incorporation argument failed in the 1870s, no new relevant law was enacted. You are certainly correct that courts, including the Supreme Court, are not bound by their own previous decisions. But they do give those decisions great respect.
quote:
Nor is precedent taken as an absolute rule, nor are court decisions ever interpreted as making laws retroactive (a clear injustice
Actually, many court decisions are retroactively enforced because retroactivity is required to render justice. It is only laws that add new penalties or liabilities (ex post facto laws) that are constitutionally excluded from retroactive enforcement. For example, laws applying criminal liability can be revoked retroactively although they sometimes are not.
quote:
which would necessarily follow if the courts alone made law).
No that would not follow. That would simply place constitutional limits on the judge/justice made law. No one is saying that courts alone make law, but they do make law. And as I'll argue below, the Supreme Court is special in this regard.
quote:
To put everything on a court decision is simply wrong.
When the Supreme Court decides, its ruling is the law even if others believe that the Court has overstepped or is completely wrong. In a very real legal sense, the Supreme Court is always correct even when they are wrong. Once the Court rules, there is no legal recourse other than getting the Supreme Court to rule again or passing another law. In this case, Congress did not act again after the Supreme Court refused to incorporate the Establishment Clause, but the Supreme Court did rule again. In 1947.
Edited by NoNukes, : More stuff regarding SCt.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2011 6:06 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by PaulK, posted 03-30-2011 1:15 PM NoNukes has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 419 of 609 (610469)
03-30-2011 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by Robert Byers
03-29-2011 10:48 PM


Robert, you're killing me here...
Robert Byers writes:
I predict my reasoning will become the idea that overthrows the present censorship.
Why are you undoing my attempts to prove that you might not be a buffoon? Your reasoning simply cannot work because it does not take into account the Fourteenth Amendment which extends the Establishment Clause to apply to the states.
You may be right about the original intent behind the first amendment, but unfortunately for your argument, the passing of the fourteenth amendment undid that intent, just as it undid the original intent of providing civil rights and citizenship for only white males.
The same reasoning that prevents the state from outlawing handguns also prevents states from interfering in the teaching of science by introducing religious teachings.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Robert Byers, posted 03-29-2011 10:48 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by Robert Byers, posted 04-05-2011 2:48 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10302
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 420 of 609 (610490)
03-30-2011 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 407 by Robert Byers
03-29-2011 10:35 PM


Yet likewise the state can't oppose religion.
That is not what the law states. The law states that the government can not prevent the free excersize of religion.
If they break this by some invented idea of a secular point allows state opposition to religious doctrines then likewise back at them.
The state does not tell students that secular ideas oppose religion. Creationists do that. Teachers at public schools do not stand in front of the class and tell students that evolution proves religion false. Again, that is what creationists are doing.
In fact creationism purpose is just as secular as any.
Then show us some biologists who are doing original scientific research based on creationism.
However it still comes back that a law is being invoked to ban one side while in fact the law demands both sides be banned if its of any substance in being a law.
Why would a ban on religios indoctrination in public schools apply to nonreligious materials?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Robert Byers, posted 03-29-2011 10:35 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024