Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

How is preventing schools from teaching 2+2=4 makes an intelligent populace. That's not searching for truth, that's hiding it. Remember, all you've argued was that we can't teach anything that runs counter to any religion at all, given that there are thousands of religion, we can't teach anything at all regardless of truth (that's according to you anyway).

Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Have you ever even read the amendment of the Constitution that applies to the separation of church and state? No; that is not the claim. Have you even skimmed the amendment of the Constitution that applies to the separation of church and state? LOL. If only there were logic to beat.Reply to Message 585: The 'founding Yankees' are irrelevant; your claims about their intentions are demonstrably false, but it wouldn't matter even if they were true: the Founding Fathers are dead and they don't matter. You can say that again... Huh? I don't even understand what this sentence means. As far as I know, there are no Constitutional prohibitions on ideasperiod. Of course it's not; neither the people nor their legislators can pass laws that violate standing amendments of the Constitution.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Sure as long you teach all the other "science", like how the stork brings new baby's to the house, how the tooth fairy buys your teeth at night, how you can cure all manner of diseases by prayer and so need no doctors ....... all this and more is the same as your ID or creationism you want to teach that then be prepared to teach this.

Sorry but that is patently and demonstrably false.You create avoidance schools and avoidance text books and avoidance radio and TV stations and avoidance browsers and avoidance peer review boards and avoidance accreditation boards.You do everything you can to avoid a search for truth because you think you already have it.

---

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

It's a moot point. The courts have ruled. Those rulings are binding. Yes, there is, at least where it concerns teaching religion in shools funded by public tax dollars.

No teach in any public school is teaching that religion is false. It bans creationism because teaching creationism has no secular purpose and entangles the government in religious matters. Please google "Lemon Test" for more information. No, it isn't. Teaching evolution has a clear secular purpose. Also, the government is not teaching that evolution or an old Earth are contrary to religious beliefs. Creationists are the ones teaching this. We can, and have.

Then you should convince school boards to make Truth Class availabe to students. We are talking about Science Class.

no, of course they didn't.because they didn't plan for mandatory, state-funded public education.they also didn't intend for slavery to end. or for women to gain the right to vote.

---

אָרַח

i dunno about that. if your religion contradicts reality, teaching reality does tech that that religion is false. but that's hardly the fault of the teacher.

---

אָרַח

suppose the truth is that you're wrong. do you still demand the search for it?

---

אָרַח

And this lie does not become truer the oftener you tell it.You have had the law explained to you. You know what the law actually is. Your lies on this subject cannot even be fooling you yourself any more.

No it doesn't. It bans creationism is science classes the same way as alchemy, astrology and magic are banned, because it is not SCIENCE.

---

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

I have established, with no rebuttal at all, that any investigation of the human mind against properties in the world is a scientific invwtigation. Can anyone demonstrate that that point is not reality. Why will no one touch that point. Point to the line that is counter factual to that simple point, if indeed it has been shown as you suggest
I have demonstrated that an examination of the physical properties in this connection and its complexity, is not only an investigation, but that it will demonstrate an unwavering complexiity of order to definate detail and purpose. point to the line or argument that can demonstrate these points and items are not science
I have demonstrated that these investigations lead inevitably to the conclusion of design, in the same way one comes to the conclusion, that the process of evolution would and might lead to lead to the conclusion of soley natural causes.
both are just conclusions and both use the natural world for thier conclusions. Only sheer idiocy would assume as to most evos that the origination source is not a part of the argumentMost evos try and cleverly exclude conclusion of evo (SNCs) as unnecessary, when in fact every position or argument concerning the natural world ofcourse would include one Again for the very simple reasons , as i have stated them, ID can be nothing but Science.just as there is no such thing as reverse prejudice, there is no such thing as religious creationism, only creationism by an intelligent designer. each of the respective positions reach thier conclusions, via, reason, experimentation, applied to the natural world, conclusions being the natural result
Only a tyro would come to another conclusion as to how such conclusions are reached. as I stated before, if the judge did not have a preconcieved idea of what Id and creo were before hand, and was not led by the nose by a bunch of simplistic lawyers, it may have seen it in its simplicty I never even suggested as much. Evolution does not affect nor is it in contrast to ID, since one could not demonstrate that things were not designed to evolveId has very little to do with religious perspectives. Id is a scientific, physical approach to reality
BTW, tell instructor, "miss the point entirely", in your video, we are happy to meet in him in public debate at the time and place of his choosing on this issueDawn Bertot

Dont mean to be rude dewise, but as usual i find little or nothing in an argument form in your post wherewith to respond. As usual its a collection of verbose, albeit educational info in the form of you hearing yourself speak. However this is a debate forum fo rthe most partOfcourse ID is not something different, how could it be when those are just terms. reality is a human using his brain against reality about the natural world to form conclusions, Duhhh, science idiocy and blindness beyond belief. Its starts in the same arena as any investigation observation of the natural world, where both change and order exists, not causation as its premise. like evos conclusions, it is preceeded by examination of natural proceesesYou need to demonstrate that ID begins with causation, you cant just assert in a declaration. Let the person that thinks he can do this step forward and ill demonstrate he is an idiot
Is this the same judge that wears a cowboy hat and speaks much of bovine feces? Geeezthe rest of the quote is a waste of my and any other intelligent persons time. perhaps someone should be reconsidered for reelection If this quote is an example of the truth you speak of, you are as informed as it is. Lawyers are notorious for complication and misdirection. if it is presented in its simplicity and accuracy it would not be missed. Oh that Dr Thomas B Warren were still with us. Ahhhhh the good ole daysRuebel Shelly will you please come out of your shell. You like quotes, correct dewise? Lincoln said, "it is better to keep you mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"
Dewise, an apologist is anyone trained in a field, to defend that position, religion or otherwise.dewise, reality does not need peer reviewed literature. Id is a simple investigation of natural processes, like any other. all anyone needs to do to immediately halt ID, is to demonstrate that such an investigation is not an initial and sustained investigation. How would anyone accomplish such a feat. Observation, evaluation, expermintation and conclusions are science no matter who is doing it. ID is the conclusion, not the processes, which is a scientific investigation
No one can or should question evos procees as not being science, anymore than ID processes, because both follow the same brain methodologythis initial and sustained process (whoever, whenever and for whatever reason, ID or evos) is independant of your conclusions. you simpletons get conclusions mixed up with processes.Dawn Bertot

Just when i think you cannot make a sillier comment than, evo follows empericism and IDst follow rationalism, you do itTaq anything happening in reality is a process, it doesnt need my approaval to be such
Who said they were investigations, i said we investigate thier patternsWe measure them by thier abilty to accomplish, carryout and produce identifiable purposes. This order and obvious order and functionality does not need your approval to as such. its detectable and measurable, by anyone paying attentionThe conclusions of ID or soley natural causes are independent of our scientific investigations on either position. You fellas mix up the conclusions of ID with the clearly scientific approach and call it a failure.
Why are your simple minds unable to make such a clear distinction? Or are you doing it on purpose with full knowledge of your misrepresentation. Im going for the latter This is like leading children around the fair. Taq, order in organisms is measurableTaq, ID and evo are not opposites, AS YOU ARE SUPPOSING and erroneously confusing. Evo (change) is an identifiable phemonenon. ID is a conclusion of the process and mechanism, of the same type you use, scientifc investigation, but not the process, that is carried out by investigationConsistent and persistent complex behaviour can prove identifiable order in numerous organism, like change can prove complex change. Both of these are scientific investigation processes, neither are conclusions Ill take you through just be patient, son Your still comparing oranges with apples. its not consistent change that you describe that would disprove evolution, it would be these processes that would need to disprove, these things as being a result of soley natural causes. Thats what you need to disprove using your own processYour asking me to provide an example of the process that would disprove my conclusion, while using an example of your process to disprove your process, when you needed an example of it to disprove your conclusion, which, is soley natural causes.
your asking me to disprove my CONCLUSION, when your conclusion is not a part of the equationIn fact there is no example of your process or mine that we could provide to disprove either conclusion, not the process, which your are confusing with your conclusion
For this reason both positions of ORDER and evo (CHANGE)are valid processes, scientifically based, they could be nothing else. Conclusions to the processes are independant as to whether thier approach is scientifcare you starting to see where you making your fundamental mistake?Dawn Bertot