This is the problem evolution is such crap that the evolutionists are actually paranoid to stand up to the Gentry's, Baumgardeners, Browns. Its not because creationists arguments are crap but an evolutionists would have to be crazy to defend the scientific merits of the theory of evolution!!!!!!!!
P.S. The kids should be taught this in the public schools and the teachers should not be threatened of losing tenure for refusing to teach lies as if it was the truth!!!!!!!
And that was crazy, malign, paranoid, and illiterate crap.
This is why people like you aren't allowed to write school textbooks.
Creation / evolution is at times like modern medicine / alternative medicine. When I asked a heart surgeon if he ever preforms chelation therapy instead of heart surgery to see his reaction. I found he was unable to discuss in good faith an alternative idea because of how much he studied to become a heart specialists. I told him he was wrong and should consider it and his response was who in the heck are you to tell me about chelation therapy. He might be a good heart surgeon but the medicine of the 21 century might well include alternative medicine like chelation therapy. What an attitude of superiority!!!!!!!
The argument for American schools i always prevail with is simple. The founding Yankee and Southern Puritan/Protestant people did not in any way put in their constitution anything to ban God or Genesis as truth or option for truth on origins in public institutions where the issue comes up.
They put the Establishment Clause in the Constitution.
Arguably when creationism was still plausible there would have been a legitimate secular purpose in teaching it. Now that it's just a religious dogma, there's no reason for teaching it any more than teaching the Bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary.
Therefore there is no law against creationism in biology class etc.
Judges disagree with you.
One can simply say the state is not everything the state pays for. Schools are not the state ...
And if the state paid the Corps of Engineers to build churches, you could argue that the Corps of Engineers are not the state. But the argument would seem somewhat tendentious.
If the state pays someone to establish some religious view, then the state is establishing that religious view. If you deny that, then what teeth does the Establishment Clause have?
One could also say the present law of censorship by addressing conclusions about origins to kids and then banning creationism(s) and teaching opposite ideas that deny creationism is in fact brwaking the very law it invokes for the censorship.
Is the same true of teaching that the Earth is round rather than flat? Does failure to teach flat-Earthism constitute censorship and a breach of the law?
Or do you want your argument only to apply to the silly ideas that you wish to be taught?
Perhaps the instructor could tell them that science has no scientifically agreeed theory of the orgin of life, and the Bible does give a presentation of creation as the origin of life.
Why drag the Bible into it? In the first place, it too does not contain a scientifically agreed theory of the origin of life, and in the second place wouldn't the first amendment require that you mention every other origins myth as well?
How about this: "No-one knows how life began. Some religious people have various conflicting hypotheses that all involve magic in some way, but there is absolutely no evidence for this, and overwhelming evidence against it in that the scientific evidence to date is that there's no such thing as magic. Hence, although we do not know and may never know the details, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that life was produced by natural causes."
Of course, as this is true, it would hardly be acceptable to you, but it does implicitly refer to the Bible and its scientific value (zero).
The important thing of this post is INDEED the state must be neutral on religious matters. Yet when teaching about origins and 1) banning creationism and 2) teaching ideas against creationism THEN its not neutral on some Christian etc doctrines. [...] By teaching evolution or banning creationism the state is making a establishment of religion. Its saying its not true.
But if you are going to go down that path, where are you going to draw the line?
Some people will argue on religious grounds that the Earth is flat. Does that mean that we can't teach that the earth is round without breaching the Establishment Clause?
We can't let religious people play dog-in-the-manger in that way, can we?
If I founded a religion tomorrow which had amongst its tenets the proposition that two twos are five, would it then become wrong to teach the multiplication table?
Even if we only had creationism to worry about, between them creationists have been wrong about nearly every subject in science, from thermodynamics to genetics to geology to the scientific method itself. Is every subject in science to be taboo if some religious person has made being wrong about that subject part of his religion?
The only sensible thing to do is to say that teaching math and science and history and whatever else is acceptable even if it contravenes the religious dogmas of certain people.
Or look at it this way. Suppose that all the evidence supported Young Earth Creationism. Suppose, for example, that radiometric dating showed that the Earth was six thousand years old. Suppose that the fossil record showed modern species persisting from the bottom on up. Would you then be saying that it is a breach of the First Amendment to teach these facts in school because they gave support to a particular religious view? I don't think you would. Nor would I. The facts should be taught.
Science teaches dogma doesn't it? For example Crick's "central dogma of molecular biology."
No. Crick, having heard the word "dogma" in Enlish usage thought that it meant "something for which there is no evidence and may very well be false". Which is actually a good description of any religious dogma.
That's why he used the word "dogma" to describe what he himself knew was no more than a tentative hypothesis.
Finally, science does not teach this "dogma" because all scientists including Crick know it to be false, since retroviruses exist.
I never stated that I wanted evolution from being taught. I have stated on many occasions on this forum that I have no problem with evolution, just with the assumption that "random mutation for fitness" and "natural" selection are proven entities.
Science cannot prove those 2 points, they are inferred by scientists, not proven. You cannot show by experiement "natural selection". You cannot show "random mutation for fitness" but merely extrapolate it from findings.
You could say the same about gravity, and with the same degree of correctness.
Science never proves anything. Anything. Ever. Science isn't about proof
This sort of statement raises my hackles.
There is a philosophical point of view from which it is true to say that "science never proves anything". But if we adopt this point of view then it would be equally true to say that I can't "prove" that I have two legs, not even by looking at them and counting them. As such, it redefines the word "prove" to the point where it loses its meaning in English as it is usually spoken.
The law is the law. Sensible or denying the truth its still the law. No one could teach YEC though it was proven true as long as the present law is in place. Yec is banned today by this law despite being the truth.
Well, no. If it was true, then there would be a valid secular purpose in teaching it, and there would be no problem with doing so.
My greater point is that there is no such law in the constitution dealing with school subjects.
The Supreme Court thinks you're wrong.
There is no actual connection between church/state relations and everything the state pays for. It was not the founders intention.
And it wasn't the founders that wrote the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the legal foundation of the Incorporation Doctrine.
The people simply should have the power to vote up or down these matters. Creationism is historic, popular, and intellectually solid. no problem to returning it to the classroom.
Oh my dear chap.
And there are a number of problems with returning it to the classroom, one being that you'd have to require every competent science teacher in the system to recite words which they knew to be untrue.
Creationism is only indirectly dealing with religion.
Which is why it's OK to implicitly teach that it's wrong.
If someone founded a religion that had amongst its tenets that two twos are five, it might be illegal to denounce that religion by name,, just as it would be wrong to denounce the various Christian sects that promote creationism. But it would still be OK to teach that two twos are four.
It isn't illegal to teach that Genesis is false - i.e. that it doesn't match observed reality. It isn't illegal to teach that Genesis is true either ...
I think you're wrong. As I understand the interpretation that the courts put on the First Amendment, it is illegal (in public schools, which is what we're talking about) to teach that Genesis is true; and it is also illegal to teach explicitly that it is false. However, one can teach the facts that falsify it.
(I am not a lawyer, but I play one in elaborate swindles that defraud the gullible.)
If one bans genesis on a subject where the object is truthful discovery of conclusions then one is saying GEnesis is untruthful.
I ask all posters here WHERE is my reasoning failing???
Well, for one thing, you overlook the legal concept of secular legislative purpose. There is a good reason for at least implicitly teaching that creationism is rubbish, namely that it is. Similarly there would be a good reason for teaching that it was true if it was true, namely that it was true.
Again, I invite you to imagine a sect that taught that two twos are five. Would that sect, by its existence, make it unconstitutional to teach the multiplication table?