If ID is taught in public schools, Dependent Origination must also be

If ID is taught in public schools, Dependent Origination must also be taught as it explains how things arise WITHOUT an intelligent agent.Everything exists as thoughtforms merely designated upon causes and conditions. This applies to yourself, deities, time, the causes and conditions themselves, and even the principle of causality itself.Since each cause is actually an effect of a previous cause, there is no first cause or beginning. Causality is an impersonal law of the universe, just as gravitation is.In fact an intelligent agent is specifically ruled out because it is is not possible for some indepedent, uncaused "thing" to interact with our dependently originated universe. It would be like trying to run Microsoft Windows on a paper book. Utterly incompatible. Edited by Enochian, : clarified my pointEdited by Enochian, : typoEdited by Enochian, : clarificationEdited by Enochian, : rephraseEdited by Enochian, : No reason given.Edited by Enochian, : No reason given.Edited by Enochian, : No reason given.

Hi Enochian, welcome to EvC!I don't think we've ever promoted a one sentence topic proposal. Could you flesh this out by explaining what "Dependent Origination and Mādhyamaka" is, and then outlining your arguments for why including ID in public schools would require including it also.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

how about now?Edited by Enochian, : No reason given.

To assist participants, here's a link to the Wikipedia article on dependent origination, a Buddhist philosophy also known as Pratītyasamutpāda.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thread copied here from the If ID is taught in public schools, Dependent Origination must also be thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Before we get off the ground here, please provide evidence to support this assertion.

Hi! Welcome to the poop toss.Would it be correct to sum up your proposition as the demand that if "Intelligent Design" (the JC creation myth) were to be taught in schools, than equal time should be given to the Buddhist equivalent?The part of "dependent origination" that is actually in context in science class is already taught, you know. It is known as causality, there's normally a short lecture about cause and effect before one digs into Newton or Galileo.

Its not about equal time to every idea.
Its about the right of the people acting through the legislature to demand that what they see as true or a option for truth on common and important ideas be given time or equal time.
Creationism is founded on historic and popular and presently popular ideas on God or Genesis being the truth of origins.
Creationism is well done and famous.other ideas are worthless or obscure and not supported by any number of people relative to our countries populations.let freedom decide the merits of any ideas.
End censorship.

So you are saying what people believe is more important that cold hard facts?That's crazy talk.

not sure these two ideas support each other !If you end censorship, then all ideas are worthy, whether obscure or not.What you really mean is, you want YOUR particular brand of creationism because that's what YOU believe.Just because something is popular doesn't make it right, and just because something is right doesn't make it popular.

That may be true, but where is any evidence that anything in Genesis has any basis of fact? Creationism is a belief not science. Science deals in evidence not faith. One can believe that rainbows only existed after the Noachin Flood, whereas science can show that that would defy the laws of physics. The storyteller of this story knew not what caused a rainbow. Also something being famous sheds no light on the reality of such. There are many stories that are famous but totally without any evidence of reality ie: Harry Potter, Superman, Hercules, Samson etc.

---

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

The government does not have the right to violate the rights of the people as defined in the Constitution. It has been ruled, several times, that public schools can not teach religious belief as science in the science classroom. It doesn't matter how important people may feel. It is a violation of constitutional rights to force religious teachings onto children in the guise of science at public schools that are funded with public tax dollars.At the same time, no one is stopping people from expressing their support of creationism outside of public schools. No one is stopping preachers from pushing creationism during Sunday School or as part of a sermon. No one is stopping creationists from publishing books that support creationism. Creationism is founded on religious belief. It is not science. Therefore, it is not appropriate for science class in public schools. However, it would be appropriate in a Comparitive Religions course if one were offered in a public school. Would you be in support of this idea?

Creationism is founded on the intelligence of people now and in the past that the bible and natural evidence support our ideas.
Also evidence for evolution is not there.
to deny creationism is to deny religion as true by your reasoning.
This is illegal for the state to do in America.Where origins are taught should the truth be taught.
censorship either means the truth can't be taught of the side censored is wrong.
again a state opinion without authority to make it and illegal.

No one is denying religion. The point is religion is not science.
Creationism is religion, not science. The Genesis creations stories are myths, created by primitive peoples, to explain the unexplainable.
Religion can be taught as religion, it just cannot be taught in science classes any more than astrology, alchemy, magic, superstitions are not taught in science classes, since they are not science.What natural evidence supports your ideas? Yes, which is why evolution, the big bang and other evidence based scientific theories are taught in science classes.

---

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

Then creationists should be presenting this evidence to scientists in the arena of science. They aren't. Until this happens then creationism can not be considered scientific, and that only leaves its religious underpinnings. No one is denying creationism. What we are saying is that creationism is not scientific, and is therefore inappropriate for a public school science class. Creationism would fit in nicely in a World Religions course if one were offered. We aren't talking about origins class. We are talking about science class. The government is necessarily censored in what it can say. Teachers in public schools are not allowed to endorse a political candidate as part of their teaching duties, as another example. We, as a nation, have decided that people in the pay of the government should respect the citizen's religious and political freedoms by staying out of the discussion.If you want to claim that creationism is truth then that's fine. Have at it. It is not the business of the government to decide which religious views are true and which are not. What I will argue against is that creationism is science, which it isn't.