Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

Nothing here new or useful.
In fact the idea of it being unconstitutional , as invoked law, to teach creationism was never mentioned.
nothing to do with ideas of science.
One does not need wordyness here.
Its simple math.
If the evolution thumpers here conclude one can be neutral on conclusions about origins relative to God/Genesis while banning same as options for these conclusions then raise your hand.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

I'm saying this is just a retreat of the courts under logical attacks like I do here.
Yet it changes nothing.
The great claim to censor creationism(s0 in schools is that it breaks a constitutional dictate.
There can be no support of the state for religious conclusions as true.
No establishment of religion is the words.
Well.
then i say they are in fact breaking this very law.
for in origin subjects they are teaching religious doctrines are untrue and banning creationism is a second point of the state saying these doctrines are untrue.They want to talk about religious truth in the schools and then ban rebuttal.
My point of logic here is that if religious doctrines accuracy are being discussed then the state is making a opinion on those religious doctrines by the two ways.
They are making a establishment of religion by saying some religious ideas are false.The great idea is that there is to be a separation of church and state. This is the line used against my side all the time.
to be separate one must be separate.
If your talking about conclusions touching on religious doctrines then your not SEPARATE. Your joined intimately.Its like they are saying my sides ideas are illegal in schools but in no way is the state giving a opinion on their accuracy.
Hogwash.
The state is not neutral.Then other posters say AMEN the state ain't neutral but its okay.Still the evolution side here needs to make up its mind which it is.Can the state force a opinion upon students as the truth of christian doctrines.
YES OR NO!

I understand you picked up on a point. yet its way off my points.I'm saying their was never any intent at all for schools to be controlled on origin issues.
They never had intent to censor God or Genesis or evolution . it was not on their minds and they would leave these things to legislatures.
YES they meant to not allow religious doctrines to be state dictated.Yet in origin issues there is boundary crossing. Conclusions are taught to kids that reject Cristian doctrines. The state is engaged in religion.
It can't say religion can't be engaged but the state can be engaged in religion. Its all based on a nuetral concept of church and state.

My insistence is that the legislature determines these matters of school teachings.
However they invoke constitutional law to censor creationism and so I strive to show this is impossible but showing that in origin subjects it can't be avoided that conclusions are made about religious ideas.
The state can't say its neutral on religion and then teach its false.
I'm destroying the legal presumptions behind the censorship.

Then you are saying YES. The state can force a opinion upon students that certain Christian doctrines are false.
Well if so then how can you say the state can't force upon students that certain Christian doctrines are true.
The law is about separation and not just separation of one from another.In short YES if it advances or hinders religion in teaching something then its okay.
AMEN. So creationism can't be banned because it advances religion as a aftereffect to teaching an option for truth on origins.
Your making my case.

The law is the law.
You can't just use the law to ban things you don't like.
Lets all just dump this invented law.

Again I say its indeed unworkable. So they had to retreat and say YES you can teach stuff that says some religious idea is wrong.
Yet I insist that if they allow religious ideas to be taught to be false then they have broken the law they invoke to censor religious ideas.
The state can't say its not allowed to teach religious ideas as true and THEN say it can teach them as untrue on a law claimed to enforce state church neutrality and mutual non interference.
Hogwash.
They invented in the mid 1900's this law to censor and the logic of it overthrows them.
All this from the ideas of 1700's thirteen colonist men.

I'll try again.
YES . Church/state separation is the concept invoked to censor creationism in subjects on origins in schools.
They are saying they can't allow creationism because it means the state is saying it is or might be true.
So this is illegal because of the SEPARATION concept.
Well
Then logically if the state teaches creationism is not true then it is making a opinion that its not true. THis by teaching evolution and second by banning creationism upon subjects where the truth is clearly the point of the teaching.
so the state is not separate from the church. its teaching the church is wrong on some points.
So they break the law they invoke.The only answer you guys can give me is that its constitutionally legal to teach the bible is wrong about origin ideas but NOT constitutionally legal to teach its right.Of coarse the minute you do that I'll say WHAT about the separation???
How can the state teach that the church is wrong on church ideas???
Thats not separation!!! Thats intimacy where it counts.To justify your censorship you must admit the truth of these origin subjects is not the priority of education.
The priority is not allowing the option of creationism.
Your making official policy the rejection of Christian doctrines.
Thats the big picture here before the details of the law.
CENSORSHIP, CENSORSHIP, CENSORSHIP.