Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

quote:

---

Simplistic maybe, but perhaps supportable in an argument.

---

It definitely overstates the importance of the courts. If the courts were solely bound by previous decisions, new legislation could never take effect. Nor is precedent taken as an absolute rule, nor are court decisions ever interpreted as making laws retroactive (a clear injustice, which would necessarily follow if the courts alone made law).To put everything on a court decision is simply wrong.

quote:

---

Principles aren't laws and you've agreed that the law allowed states to act against those principles

---

Again this is simply narrowing the questions before us and ignoring an important point by doing so. If the principles go back to the Founding fathers then upholding them can be argued as a perfectly good, even patriotic thing to do. Remember that even a less incorrect version of the argument has to argue that the verdict was improper and wrong.

The law is the law.
It clearly is used to ban creationism on the concept that religion can not be supported by the state. Yet likewise the state can't oppose religion.
This because the claim is that the constitution demands a separation of church and state. Not a separation of state FROM church but a separation from both interfering with each other.
If they break this by some invented idea of a secular point allows state opposition to religious doctrines then likewise back at them.
They can't oppose creationism just because its religious. In fact creationism purpose is just as secular as any. Its telling the truth on origins. That it bumps into religion is also beside the point.
However it still comes back that a law is being invoked to ban one side while in fact the law demands both sides be banned if its of any substance in being a law.It all demonstrates that its a false law invented in the 1900's.
its impossible to logically allow it to follow its logic.
So they tamper enough to preserve what they really want.
One way censorship.
Sorry but the law is the law.

Again. Its not me saying this law exists. its your side. I'm pointing out the illogic of it to point out it never existed. Its a 1900's invention. Nothing to do with the 1700;.

You have made these same claims over and over and over.You have been corrected time and again.You clearly are not reading the responses, or are just ignoring them.It seems that you are not here to debate, but to preach. And you are preaching a narrow interpretation of one particular religion in the Science Forum--where it doesn't belong.

This is fine for details but misses the great legal point I'm talking about.
Its about the establishment clause or separation concept in the law being used to censor God and Genesis as options for origins in public schools.
They are saying its constitutionally illegal for the state to allow creationism as a option in origin subjects .
I argue that since origin subjects in schools are taught from a position of accurate conclusions and processes to those conclusions then in FACT the state is making a opinion that some religious doctrines are false.
This by teaching opposite ideas to Genesis and second by banning genesis.
The state is not neutral here on conclusions touching on religion.
Therefore its breaking the very law it invokes to ban creationism.no one here has made a case to me of why my reasoning is wrong.
I predict my reasoning will become the idea that overthrows the present censorship.

It isn't a few men.
The founders were the delegates that ratified and gave force and legitimacy to the constitution. these delegates were delegated as speaking for the peiople.
So the original intent of the constitution on teaching origins is the most important point.
they invoke the constitution to ban creationism.
I insist the very Protestant yanks and Southerners had no such intent.
its hogwash from the 1900's to ban ideas they didn't want taught in schools by aggressive legislatures.

You are a liar.It is you who have repeatedly claimed that the law prohibits round-earth teaching.It is I who have said repeatedly that it does not.This crazy imaginary law exists only in your head.

The state can teach or endorse a view contrary to the dogma of any religion or sect so long as there is a clear secular purpose in doing so.This is the law. This is not the crazy imaginary law that you've made up in your head, but it is the actual law. No it doesn't. The crazy imaginary made-up law in your head demands that. The actual law does not.

The point is there is no censorship. Creation is not science and therefore does not belong in science classes, whether that creation is Judeo-Christian, Mayan, Greek, Roman, Chines, Hindu or any other creation myth,. Creation can be taught where in belongs, in a course of comparative religions.

---

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

You're not talking about a great legal point. You're talking nonsense. Yes, because there's no scientific evidence for either one, so neither belongs in science class. No, so far all they have said is that it's unconstitutional in science classes. I really have no idea what you mean by "origin subjects." That's usually an IDiot code phrase for anything that contradicts Genesis, but I'm not inclined to speculate on your meaning. Schools teach science. As I showed you above, the Supreme Court has ruled that the mere fact that science might teach a subject that contradicts some religion is no reason to ban that subject. You have not responded to that, but simply parrot back the same gibberish over and over again. As has been pointed out to you, this is not debating; this is preaching. This is not English. I'd suggest more ESL classes. Other than your own peculiar opinion, do you have any authority to support this claim? Just in case you might still be reading, I'll repeat the question. Other than your own peculiar opinion, do you have any authority to support this claim? Here's a suggestion. It's best not to review a thread by reading only your own posts in it. Of course, if you're only reading your own posts, you won't read this one. What a conundrum!Not only have you not provided any reasoning, everyone here has made a case showing why you are hopelessly wrong. I predict that you will never understand or substantively respond to anything that anyone says here, and that this thread will soon be closed for lack of any legitimate discussion.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

quote:

---

This is fine for details but misses the great legal point I'm talking about.

---

There's a reason for that. NoNukes was trying to find something you got RIGHT, which is why your "legal point" got left out.But thanks for confirming that I was right to insist that I had adequately dealt with your actual argument.

quote:

---

no one here has made a case to me of why my reasoning is wrong.

---

That's just not true. As has been pointed out more than once the government IS permitted to take actions that happen to hinder religion if there is a valid secular purpose for their actions. We've got sound reasoning as to why that should be the case and legal precedents to back it up.

Im so sorry to disappoint you but genesis, creationism, ID,are not accurate explanations of REALITY based on evidence and experimentation. EVOLUTION is!It is not the states fault that your religions views on "origins" are completely wrong, and if you want the state to teach inaccurate representations of reality, then why stop with creationism demand that they teach Intelligent pulling side by side with gravity, demand that they teach the existence of "cold" particles re add them to the periodic table of elements next to the theory that cold is the absence of heat, teach the flath earth theory also in geography, teach that sin causes sickens alongside medicine .....If creationism has the right to be taught in science classes then so do all of these theories and more, and if evolution has no right to be taught in science classes then so does no other science field.Do you really want to live in a country where doctors cant be taught medicine, or where doctors can instead of the medicine you need prescribe you a visit to the priest to repent and say you will be all better afterwards if god wants it or if he does not youl die.

True, but that did not happen in this case. After the 14th Amendment was ratified, and the incorporation argument failed in the 1870s, no new relevant law was enacted. You are certainly correct that courts, including the Supreme Court, are not bound by their own previous decisions. But they do give those decisions great respect.

quote:

---

Nor is precedent taken as an absolute rule, nor are court decisions ever interpreted as making laws retroactive (a clear injustice

---

Actually, many court decisions are retroactively enforced because retroactivity is required to render justice. It is only laws that add new penalties or liabilities (ex post facto laws) that are constitutionally excluded from retroactive enforcement. For example, laws applying criminal liability can be revoked retroactively although they sometimes are not.

quote:

---

which would necessarily follow if the courts alone made law).

---

No that would not follow. That would simply place constitutional limits on the judge/justice made law. No one is saying that courts alone make law, but they do make law. And as I'll argue below, the Supreme Court is special in this regard.

quote:

---

To put everything on a court decision is simply wrong.

---

When the Supreme Court decides, its ruling is the law even if others believe that the Court has overstepped or is completely wrong. In a very real legal sense, the Supreme Court is always correct even when they are wrong. Once the Court rules, there is no legal recourse other than getting the Supreme Court to rule again or passing another law. In this case, Congress did not act again after the Supreme Court refused to incorporate the Establishment Clause, but the Supreme Court did rule again. In 1947.Edited by NoNukes, : More stuff regarding SCt.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Why are you undoing my attempts to prove that you might not be a buffoon? Your reasoning simply cannot work because it does not take into account the Fourteenth Amendment which extends the Establishment Clause to apply to the states.You may be right about the original intent behind the first amendment, but unfortunately for your argument, the passing of the fourteenth amendment undid that intent, just as it undid the original intent of providing civil rights and citizenship for only white males.The same reasoning that prevents the state from outlawing handguns also prevents states from interfering in the teaching of science by introducing religious teachings.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That is not what the law states. The law states that the government can not prevent the free excersize of religion. The state does not tell students that secular ideas oppose religion. Creationists do that. Teachers at public schools do not stand in front of the class and tell students that evolution proves religion false. Again, that is what creationists are doing. Then show us some biologists who are doing original scientific research based on creationism. Why would a ban on religios indoctrination in public schools apply to nonreligious materials?