Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9094 total)
6 online now:
PaulK, Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (5 members, 1 visitor)
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,613 Year: 12,725/6,534 Month: 8/2,210 Week: 339/460 Day: 8/22 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 384 of 609 (610207)
03-27-2011 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Robert Byers
03-26-2011 2:05 AM


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

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Robert Byers, posted 03-26-2011 2:05 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by Robert Byers, posted 03-29-2011 10:59 PM Jon has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 455 of 609 (611471)
04-08-2011 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 450 by Robert Byers
04-08-2011 2:21 AM


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.
Huh? Of course they don't. The law as applied to education forbids the State from taking religious beliefs into consideration when deciding what to teach or not to teach. It doesn't take Fundamentalist Christianity into consideration any more than it takes Astrology or Moose's 2+2=5 doctrine into consideration.
This is an application and upholding of the law, not a breaking!
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by Robert Byers, posted 04-08-2011 2:21 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 456 of 609 (611472)
04-08-2011 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by Robert Byers
04-08-2011 2:24 AM


Creationism is Religion
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

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by Robert Byers, posted 04-08-2011 2:24 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by Robert Byers, posted 04-12-2011 3:36 AM Jon has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 512 of 609 (611952)
04-12-2011 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 504 by Robert Byers
04-12-2011 3:36 AM


Re: Creationism is Religion
The state is making a opinion on God and Genesis conclusions about origins.
Yes: that they are religious.
The state has a opinion on religious truth.
Only that it's religious.
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.
Who said such an opinion is not being rendered?
Why is my reasoning wrong?????
Because it's based off of a 'Constitution' that doesn't exist.
THEN the state is officially saying religious doctrines are false.
Of course it's not; in fact, by the demand of the Constitution, the state is officially saying that religious doctrines don't matter in the classroom.
I cannot understand where your confusion comes from.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by Robert Byers, posted 04-12-2011 3:36 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 584 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 2:27 AM Jon has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 513 of 609 (611963)
04-12-2011 12:50 PM


An Argument For?
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?

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 514 by NoNukes, posted 04-12-2011 1:41 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied
 Message 585 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 3:13 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 543 of 609 (612108)
04-13-2011 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 531 by Dawn Bertot
04-12-2011 9:24 PM


Scientists Like to be Wrong
if enough "scientists" agree that order and law exist in the universe and they are using a scientific approach, is this sufficient to enough reason for them to conclude design. Ofcourse it is Would they be doing science, sure they would?
If there were evidence to support the notion of a supreme designer, then scientists would readily accept such a conclusion and investigate it further.
Problem:
No such evidence exists; you have been asked a bajillion times (along with the other Creos here) to present even a shred of evidence for a designer, and so far, not onenot onepiece of evidence has been put forthabsolutely nothing to support the designer conclusion.
If there were evidence for the designer, scientists would be accepting the designer conclusion in droves. If there is a designer, and there is evidence for it, getting scientists to accept the designer conclusion would be so dern easy: just present the designer evidence.
Yet, despite how 'true' ID/Creationism is, and despite how 'strong' the evidence is, no Creo anywhere, ever, has even once offered a single shred of evidence to support the designer conclusion; somehow I don't think they ever will.
But you're welcome to prove me wrong... scientists like that.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : clarity

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 531 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-12-2011 9:24 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 587 of 609 (612394)
04-15-2011 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 584 by Robert Byers
04-15-2011 2:27 AM


Re: Creationism is Religion (and Religion Doesn't Matter)
if religious matters didn't matter in the classroom then the state would not teach them as being false or ban them
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?
The claim is that the church and state must not interfere with each other.
No; that is not the claim. Have you even skimmed the amendment of the Constitution that applies to the separation of church and state?
you can't beat the logic here.
LOL. If only there were logic to beat.
Reply to Message 585:
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.
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.
HOGWASH.
You can say that again...
There is no constitutional prohibition of ideas on origins from any direction.
Huh? I don't even understand what this sentence means. As far as I know, there are no Constitutional prohibitions on ideasperiod.
Therefore its up to the people through the legislature to decide.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 584 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 2:27 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022