Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9094 total)
3 online now:
dwise1, Phat (2 members, 1 visitor)
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,942 Year: 13,054/6,534 Month: 337/2,210 Week: 278/390 Day: 0/84 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 1306 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 107 of 331 (529656)
10-10-2009 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by JRTjr
10-06-2009 11:11 PM


JRTjr writes:
quote:
Since the U.S. Congress is the only Federal body that can constitutionally create Federal Law in the United States of America the Supreme Court overstepped its bound by making up a Separation of Church and State rule.
Thus showing you don't really understand constitutional law.
Of course, the Legislature is the only body that can write law, but the separation of church and state isn't "law." It's a constitutional principle.
And by the Constitution, judical power resides in the Judiciary, not the Legislature. The Congress can write whatever law it wishes, but it must be in confluence with the Constitution and it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to verify that the law fits with the Constitution.
Suppose Congress were to write a law saying you, personally, are to be my slave. This violates not only the Thirteenth Amendment regarding the abolition of slavery but also Article I, Section 9 regarding bills of attainder. Where are you supposed to turn to have that law overturned if not the courts? Oh, you might petition Congress to strike the law, but what if they refuse? You might request the Executive not to sign the law, but what if it is? Now that it has been ratified and passed, where can you find relief from slavery?
That is what the Supreme Court is for. It's what "judicial power" means. "Separation of church and state" isn't a law for it does not make anything happen. It only makes sense in the light of a law that exists...and that is something that only Congress can do. If the law that Congress passes violates the First Amendment's protections, then it is the duty of the Supreme Court to strike it down for they are the only ones who can.
Hint: The specific phrase, "separation of church and state," wasn't coined by the Court but rather by Jefferson. However, it rather succinctly describes how the Court interprets the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Do not get caught up words.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by JRTjr, posted 10-06-2009 11:11 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Izanagi, posted 10-10-2009 12:42 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 110 by JRTjr, posted 06-25-2010 2:27 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 1306 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 241 of 331 (589513)
11-03-2010 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by JRTjr
11-03-2010 1:57 AM


JRTjr writes:
quote:
Should we yank the ‘Big Bang’ theory? If the universe had a beginning it had a beginner. That sounds an awful lot like creationism to me.
Huh? That makes no sense.
First, you don't seem to understand what the Big Bang is. It is not a description of the creation of the universe. Instead, it is a description of the expansion of the universe. The creation of the universe happened before the Big Bang.
Second, where is your evidence that "if the universe had a beginning, it had a beginner"? That is not accepted as a given.
Third, we can directly observe the effects of the Big Bang. That's why it exists as a theory.
quote:
Or maybe we should not teach about DNA. DNA is passed on from parent to child and insures that the child will be of the same species as the parents. (Unless altered by mankind) DNA is also an information rich system; Information transmission is the hallmark of intelligence; sounds an awful lot like a Creator to me.
Huh? That makes no sense.
First, you don't seem to understand what DNA is. It does not "insure that the child will be of the same species as the parents." In fact, given all our observations of DNA, it never remains stable but rather always mutates from generation to generation, guaranteeing the creation of new species. That's why we have seen speciation happen right in front of our eyes both in the lab and in the wild.
Second, DNA is not an "information rich system." And "information transmission" certainly isn't any sign of intelligence.
By your logic, your parents are gods. Surely that isn't your argument, is it?
quote:
I believe ‘Science’ should only be restrained by Facts, and Evidence. Not by what someone believes or wants to accept.
Indeed.
That's why creationism isn't taught in science class: It has no facts or evidence.
That's why evolution is taught in science class: It is based solely upon facts and evidence.
quote:
If there is good and strong evidence to support a hypothesis, why should it be held back from our students?
It shouldn't.
So tell you what: Every year we'll do a survey of all the biology journals to examine how many articles support creationism and how many support evolution. Would you accept that? After all, if creationism had "good and strong evidence" to support it, then surely it could survive peer review and make it into the journals, yes?
Would you accept that?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 1:57 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by JRTjr, posted 02-28-2011 11:27 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 1306 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 261 of 331 (590223)
11-06-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by JRTjr
11-06-2010 10:29 AM


JRTjr writes:
quote:
Religion, according to ‘Dictionary.Com’ is:
Argumentum ad dictionary? Is there nobody who understands this isn't an argument?
Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. While it is important to define terms so that we know what we're talking about, you do not get to pull out the dictionary as justification in an attempt to distract from your logical error of equivocation. Specifically, you refer to "religion" meaning "a fundamental set of beliefs and practices" and then immediately equivocate to the definition of "something on believes in and follows devotedly."
Your own example shows you the fallacy of this equivocation:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice
By this logic, we should not teach anything in school because there are people who "make a religion" out of anything and everything. That's often one of the reasons that teachers go into teaching: They have "made a religion" out of their particular subject and "believe in" and "follow devotedly" the various events within that area of study.
quote:
Atheists hold to a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon
No, they don't. That's the entire point. That's why atheism isn't a religion: There is no "fundamental set of beliefs and practices." There is a fundamental lack of such beliefs and practices. That's why it's called "A"-theism. It is the absence of such.
quote:
Constantly repeating a lie does not make it true.
Indeed. No matter how many times you repeat the lie that atheism is a religion, that still won't make it true.
quote:
I can also play the whine game: Creation is a fact
Then surely you can provide the journal references that support that claim, right? Why is it I can't find a single article in any biology journal that provides any such evidence? Why is it that the only thing I can find repeatable, observable facts for is evolution?
quote:
it is the myriad of other facts that ‘Macro-Evolution’ can’t explain
What did you just say about constantly repeating a lie? You can chant that all you want, that still won't make it true. We have seen speciation happen right in front of our eyes. Why would you have us deny that?
Hint: There is no such thing as "macro-evolution." There is only "evolution."
Question: If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10?
quote:
So, if the theory does not explain all of the known facts it must be adjusted
Precisely. That's why creationism and Lamarckism and all other speculations about how life diversified on this planet were dropped in favor of the modern synthesis of evolution.
quote:
The facts point, vary strongly, toward life being designed, created {Creationism}; not a series of ‘just so’ ‘accidental’ happy ‘coincidences’ that just happen to look orchestrated {Atheism}.
No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it will not make it true.
And since when did evolution mean atheism? The official position of the Catholic Church is that life diversified via evolution. Are you saying the Pope is an atheist? Note, I'm not asking you to claim to be a Catholic or to believe any of their dogma...I'm simply asking of you think the Pope doesn't believe in god.
So since evolution doesn't mean atheism, which creation story should be taught?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by JRTjr, posted 11-06-2010 10:29 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 1306 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 275 of 331 (590973)
11-11-2010 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Coyote
11-07-2010 11:20 PM


Coyote writes:
quote:
Pretty thin gruel there, eh? But creationists are used to making things up from nothing so it fits right in.
True, but part of the problem has to do with the fact that we're dealing with 18th-century language and means of thinking. That is, the people in the 1700s weren't completely oblivious to the idea of atheism, but it wasn't treated in the same way we do today and the sheer pervasiveness of religion was different than it is today. Thus, the First Amendment talks about "establishment of religion."
Since atheism isn't a religion, one could come to the conclusion that this means the government is free to establish atheism, but that wouldn't be the best solution. Official denial of the existence of god by the government can be just as burdensome to the idea of "freedom of religion" (a phrase which does not appear in the Constitution) as does official endorsement of same.
Instead, the best idea is to remain neutral on the subject and simply not say anything, one way or the other. Yes, religion has played an important part of our cultural history and it would be a disservice to the Humanities to ignore that. So yes, the government can do things like preserve churches of historical significance with government funds. But just as it is completely inappropriate to put "In God We Trust" on the money, it would be just as bad to put "There Is No God" on the money, too.
It isn't because atheism is a religion and that would be establishment. It's that it would endanger free exercise and call into question equal treatment under the law. Imagine how a believer would feel walking into court and having to hear the judge pause to officially denounce the existence of god. To have signs on the wall extolling the virtues of living without belief. Could the participants really expect a fair hearing with such official animus thrown against them?
So atheism should be treated in the same manner as religion not because it is a religion but rather because its establishment harms the free exercise of religion of others.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Coyote, posted 11-07-2010 11:20 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 5:03 AM Rrhain 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