|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,502 Year: 6,759/9,624 Month: 99/238 Week: 16/83 Day: 7/9 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4624 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Otto Tellick writes: Robert Byers writes: The state can't say its neutral on religion and then teach its false. When a given religious group makes assertions that conflict directly with observable evidence, and insists on belief in these assertions as a condition for membership, it's unavoidable that a proper, objective education must lead successful students to the conclusion that the given religious group is wrong in their assertions, and that the students are better off not being members of that group. Students who don't reach this conclusion are not successful -- i.e. they fail. (We're talking here about assertions such as denying the genetic relationship of common ancestry among all primates, including humans, among all mammals, including humans, and so on.) Since such a religious group has no basis for its counterfactual beliefs other than choosing to adopt a particular interpretation (of some translation) of a chosen "sacred text", it is really the group's own fault that their conditions for membership are incompatible with a proper and objective education. As we know, many religious groups make different assertions, which don't conflict with observable evidence, yet are based on (the same translation of) the same "sacred text" -- the difference is that they've chosen to interpret the text in a way that acknowledges and accommodates reality. The public schools, which are obligated to provide proper, objective education to all attending students, don't create any conflict with these latter religious groups. Conflict with groups of the former type are inescapable, but the former type of religious group has an intrinsic conflict with reality; public schooling is not the only problem these people will face in life. The state accommodates home schooling for those adherents who choose to "protect" their children from factual information, even though this works to the detriment of these children and the community and nation at large. If you, as a US citizen, really are firm in your insistence on denying reality, you should count yourself lucky that you live in a country where the government does not require you to accept reality, and even allows you to hide reality from your children for as long as your children can stand it. AMEN. Proper objective, education.So laws banning creationism must mean either objectivity is NOT the first priority or the state is officially saying creationism is false. The law says they can't say its false because this is the law they invoke to say you can't say its true. You make my case here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4624 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined:
|
Dr Adequate writes: 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. They can teach this --- if there's a secular purpose to it. The Bible says that the sun and moon exist, but that doesn't mean that teachers can't teach that this is so, even though it does confirm certain passages in Scripture.
So creationism can't be banned because it advances religion as a aftereffect to teaching an option for truth on origins. Creationism serves no secular purpose. The purpose is the truth of origins about this or that.To say creationism is banned on subjects that are about truth discovery is a official state opinion creationism and so some religious doctrines are false. A clear line of reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4624 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined:
|
Jon writes: the state is officially saying creationism is false. No. The State is officially saying that Creationism is religious doctrine, and so it cannot be taken into consideration when deciding what to teach or not to teach, as doing so would be a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. Jon In saying creationism is a religious doctrine and then saying its illegal in classes dealing with subjects on origins where the express purpose of the class is to tell the truth and processes to discovery of truth on origins. THEN the state is officially saying religious doctrines are false.So breaking the very law it uses to censor creationism. You can't ban something or teach directly opposite to its conclusions and then say your not rendering an opinion on that very thing's accuracy. The state is making a opinion on God and Genesis conclusions about origins. The state has a opinion on religious truth. This is illegal if you invoke a law saying there is a separation, repeat separation, of church and state. Why is my reasoning wrong?????
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4624 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined:
|
Son writes: Robert, do you actually want to scrap all schools? Do you really want to destroy education so everyone is equally ignorant? It may be your purpose but surely even you can understand why the state would be opposed to that. If it wasn't for education, you wouldn't even have the computer to type this on (remember that you can't make much if you teach 2+2=5). Our purpose is to demand and allow the truth and the search for tryth in public institutions of learning.This makes a intelligent populace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4624 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined:
|
Dr Adequate writes: The purpose is the truth of origins about this or that. To say creationism is banned on subjects that are about truth discovery is a official state opinion creationism and so some religious doctrines are false. Why yes. Just as by use of maps based on a spherical earth rather than a flat one the state (at least tacitly) expresses an official opinion on the religious doctrines of flat-Earth sects. And the state has every right to do this, as the law affirms. Because there is a secular purpose in the state so doing. How many times do you need this explaining to you? i'm saying they are breaking the very law they invoke for the censorship!The secular purpose for discussion and investigation of origins is the truth. In banning creationism its a official state opinion its , and the bible etc, NOT TRUE. No way around it. The law is a fraud of invention.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4624 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined:
|
Taq writes: In saying creationism is a religious doctrine and then saying its illegal in classes dealing with subjects on origins where the express purpose of the class is to tell the truth and processes to discovery of truth on origins. THEN the state is officially saying religious doctrines are false.
False. We are not talking about Truth Class. We are talking about Science Class. They teach the science dealing with how species change over time. Nowhere in the curriculum do they state that religious doctrines are false. Nowhere have you shown that creationism qualifies as science. Only creationists are claiming that evolution indicates that religious doctrines are false. in fact its really conclusion class. Science is just a process they say lead to their conclusions.Anyways the law is saying creationism is illegal and thats the point here being contended. Dump this fraud law and then make your case to the people creationism should not be in science/conclusion on origins class.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4624 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined:
|
if religious matters didn't matter in the classroom then the state would not teach them as being false or ban them.
It bans creationism because it does matter. The claim is that the church and state must not interfere with each other. Yet the state is doing just that by teaching ideas contrary to the church. tHen banning a reply pushes all the more this as a official state opinion on religious ideas. you can't beat the logic here. Your not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4624 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined:
|
Jon writes: I went back to look over Mr. Byers's previous posts; I was curious to see what his arguments for Creationism in the classroom were. Unfortunately, all I found were a lot of arguments against evolution, but none that were for Creationism, as the topic of the thread requires. I find this whole debate about whether teaching evolution is constitutional or not quite irrelevant, then, to the topic. Even if Byers is correct, and evolution cannot be taught on grounds that it violates the Constitution, how is this justification for teaching Creationism? If we get rid of evolution, why should we fill its place with Creationism? What does Creationism have to offer the science class? How would teaching creationism avoid the 'problems' that teaching evolution supposedly creates? Mr. Byers: What is your argument for Creationism? I'm giving a package deal here.My great insistence is that the founding Yankee and southern Puritan and Protestant population who gave the constitution legitimacy and so its force NEVER intended anything to ban God or Genesis in schools as the truth or options for truth on points of origin. HOGWASH. Origins, or schools, or state and school were not in any way a part of those peoples lives. There is no constitutional prohibition of ideas on origins from any direction. Therefore its up to the people through the legislature to decide. Thats self government, freedom, and common sense.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024