However they invoke constitutional law to censor creationism and so I strive to show this is impossible but showing that in origin subjects it can't be avoided that conclusions are made about religious ideas.
Religion is not mentioned in science class. The ones making conclusions as to the interaction of science and religion are the creationists, not public school science teachers.
The state can't say its neutral on religion and then teach its false.
This is not taught. It is creationists who teach that evolution falsifies religion, not the state.
The state can't say its neutral on religion and then teach its false.
So when scientists use evidence to reach conclusions they should check around among all the world's religions to see what conclusions they have to suppress, lest they offend someone who bases his conclusions on myth, superstition, "revelation," and other such forms of "knowledge?"
My insistence is that the legislature determines these matters of school teachings. However they invoke constitutional law to censor creationism and so I strive to show this is impossible but showing that in origin subjects it can't be avoided that conclusions are made about religious ideas. The state can't say its neutral on religion and then teach its false.
But what the state also says is that its doctrine of neutrality does not preclude it using, endorsing, or teaching an idea which has a genuine secular purpose even if that idea does conflict with the religious dogmas of a crank.
And the actions of the state are consistent with this position.
They could not teach that the Earth is round just to spite a Flat-Earth sect, or to promote other sects, but they can teach it because it's useful to know.
The state does not say that it can't say anything at all which has any bearing whatsoever on the religious opinions of anyone at all. That would be stupid.
If the law did say this stupid thing, which it doesn't, then your argument would have some weight, which it doesn't.
So when scientists use evidence to reach conclusions they should check around among all the world's religions to see what conclusions they have to suppress, lest they offend someone who bases his conclusions on myth, superstition, "revelation," and other such forms of "knowledge?"
You really believe that nonsense?
As far as I can figure out, he doesn't think that that is what should happen, he thinks that this is what the current law says should happen, and offers this as a reductio ad absurdum of the law.
Of course, that is not what the law says, as I have explained to him about a jillion times.
So when scientists use evidence to reach conclusions they should check around among all the world's religions to see what conclusions they have to suppress, lest they offend someone who bases his conclusions on myth, superstition, "revelation," and other such forms of "knowledge?"
You really believe that nonsense?
As far as I can figure out, he doesn't think that that is what should happen, he thinks that this is what the current law says should happen, and offers this as a reductio ad absurdum of the law.
Of course, that is not what the law says, as I have explained to him about a jillion times.
And, of course, he isn't listening. This shows that Heinlein was right when he said:
Belief gets in the way of learning.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
My insistence is that the legislature determines these matters of school teachings.
State legislatures, not Congress. Though most work in determining and developing policy and curriculum is delegated down to state and local school boards. None of which can violate constitutional law, though they have tried mainly at the behest of creationists and other special-interest religious groups.
However they invoke constitutional law to censor creationism and so I strive to show this is impossible but showing that in origin subjects it can't be avoided that conclusions are made about religious ideas.
Creationism is not being censored. Never has been and never should be. Creationists are being blocked from getting it into public school science classes because to allow it in would indeed be a violation of church-state separation. You keep saying that you're in favor of that separation, yet you keep insisting that we must violate it directly.
The state can't say its neutral on religion and then teach its false.
When a given religious group makes assertions that conflict directly with observable evidence, and insists on belief in these assertions as a condition for membership, it's unavoidable that a proper, objective education must lead successful students to the conclusion that the given religious group is wrong in their assertions, and that the students are better off not being members of that group. Students who don't reach this conclusion are not successful -- i.e. they fail.
(We're talking here about assertions such as denying the genetic relationship of common ancestry among all primates, including humans, among all mammals, including humans, and so on.)
Since such a religious group has no basis for its counterfactual beliefs other than choosing to adopt a particular interpretation (of some translation) of a chosen "sacred text", it is really the group's own fault that their conditions for membership are incompatible with a proper and objective education.
As we know, many religious groups make different assertions, which don't conflict with observable evidence, yet are based on (the same translation of) the same "sacred text" -- the difference is that they've chosen to interpret the text in a way that acknowledges and accommodates reality.
The public schools, which are obligated to provide proper, objective education to all attending students, don't create any conflict with these latter religious groups. Conflict with groups of the former type are inescapable, but the former type of religious group has an intrinsic conflict with reality; public schooling is not the only problem these people will face in life.
The state accommodates home schooling for those adherents who choose to "protect" their children from factual information, even though this works to the detriment of these children and the community and nation at large. If you, as a US citizen, really are firm in your insistence on denying reality, you should count yourself lucky that you live in a country where the government does not require you to accept reality, and even allows you to hide reality from your children for as long as your children can stand it.
autotelicadj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
Then you are saying YES. The state can force a opinion upon students that certain Christian doctrines are false. Well if so then how can you say the state can't force upon students that certain Christian doctrines are true. The law is about separation and not just separation of one from another.
In short YES if it advances or hinders religion in teaching something then its okay. AMEN. So creationism can't be banned because it advances religion as a aftereffect to teaching an option for truth on origins. Your making my case.
Then you are saying YES. The state can force a opinion upon students that certain Christian doctrines are false. Well if so then how can you say the state can't force upon students that certain Christian doctrines are true.
They can teach this --- if there's a secular purpose to it. The Bible says that the sun and moon exist, but that doesn't mean that teachers can't teach that this is so, even though it does confirm certain passages in Scripture.
So creationism can't be banned because it advances religion as a aftereffect to teaching an option for truth on origins.
quote:
Then you are saying YES. The state can force a opinion upon students that certain Christian doctrines are false.
No, I did not. The state is, however, entitled to teach the findings of science and if they contradict your religion, then too bad for your religion.
quote:
Well if so then how can you say the state can't force upon students that certain Christian doctrines are true. The law is about separation and not just separation of one from another.
The same way that it says that the government doesn't have to allow polygamy just because some Mormon sects demand it. It's because the law IS about separation. The government cannot take actions BECUSE they help or hinder religions, but if it has a valid reason it may act in ways that happen to help or hinder religion. This has been explained to you many times.
quote:
In short YES if it advances or hinders religion in teaching something then its okay.
Wrong. It is only okay if the effect on religion is incidental.
quote:
AMEN. So creationism can't be banned because it advances religion as a aftereffect to teaching an option for truth on origins. Your making my case.
Creationism is certainly NOT a valid scientific option so obviously this teaching has no place in science class. Where would it go ? Teaching it as an "option" would also not permit teaching it as the truth. So you re making MY case for ME.
By your reasoning, if someone had the religious based belief that 2+2=5, then the public schools could not teach that 2+2=4, because that would be teaching that the 2+2=5 religious belief is wrong.
Moose
Added by edit: The teaching of 2+2=4 being correct is NOT the teaching that the religious belief of 2+2=5 is wrong. It does imply that 2+2=5 is wrong, and the religious believer may infer that they are teaching that 2+2=5 is wrong. But implications and inferrals are not explicit teachings.
Again I say its indeed unworkable. So they had to retreat and say YES you can teach stuff that says some religious idea is wrong. Yet I insist that if they allow religious ideas to be taught to be false then they have broken the law they invoke to censor religious ideas. The state can't say its not allowed to teach religious ideas as true and THEN say it can teach them as untrue on a law claimed to enforce state church neutrality and mutual non interference. Hogwash. They invented in the mid 1900's this law to censor and the logic of it overthrows them. All this from the ideas of 1700's thirteen colonist men.
I'll try again. YES . Church/state separation is the concept invoked to censor creationism in subjects on origins in schools. They are saying they can't allow creationism because it means the state is saying it is or might be true. So this is illegal because of the SEPARATION concept. Well 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.
The only answer you guys can give me is that its constitutionally legal to teach the bible is wrong about origin ideas but NOT constitutionally legal to teach its right.
Of coarse the minute you do that I'll say WHAT about the separation??? How can the state teach that the church is wrong on church ideas??? Thats not separation!!! Thats intimacy where it counts.
To justify your censorship you must admit the truth of these origin subjects is not the priority of education. The priority is not allowing the option of creationism. Your making official policy the rejection of Christian doctrines. Thats the big picture here before the details of the law. CENSORSHIP, CENSORSHIP, CENSORSHIP.
™ Version 4.2
(1)