Which religion's creation story should be taught?

This has been done. That is why the theory of evolution is taught, and religious myths are not taught, in science classes.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Nearly, apart from the bit where you say it fits the definition of a religion.Obviously, atheism is not really a religion. However, for the purposes of interpreting the First Amendment it ought to be treated as one --- for example, it should be illegal for public school teachers to indoctrinate children with atheism. Atheist opinions should not be given a free ride with respect to the Establishment Clause just because atheism is technically not a religion. It would be every bit as wrong to establish atheism as to establish Christianity or Islam or Hinudism.

I guess that we're good with that. So what you are going to say now is, first, that the word "Adequate" has another "a" in it, between the "u" and the "t"; second, that you meant "seem" rather than "seam"; third, that you meant to say "wrapped" rather than "rapped"; and fourth, that creationism is is a load of fatuous garbage and you're sorry for wasting everyone's time by talking nonsense.You're welcome.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The creationists get the "atheism is a religion" from two court cases.Torcaso v. Watkins, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, dealt with a requirement in a Maryland that one take religious test to hold office. The court overturned that. In the decision, Justice Black included a footnote equating treatment of secular humanism and other "religions." Creationists are obviously unaware that footnotes (dicta) in decisions have no legal force.The second, Kaufman v. McCaughtry in the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, was a case where a prisoner in Wisconsin wanted to form an "atheists" group to get time off on Sunday, along with religious groups. The court agreed that for this purpose he was justified in getting that time off. They didn't declare that atheism was a religion as creationists will claim. Rather, they declared that atheism was afforded equal protection, along with religions, under the Establishment Clause.Pretty thin gruel there, eh? But creationists are used to making things up from nothing so it fits right in.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

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 wiill be a bit offtopic, though the usa is known for having laughable court trials, like someone suing god for not giving him a talent to play guitar, or a microwave company cause they did not put do not dry your cat in the microwave on the manual. Has anyone tried to use the god did it defense in any trial and got away whit it.Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This is of course true: as your in depth participation in your own threads clearly shows.EvC Forum: Can I disprove Macro-EvolutionFull marks, extra tuck for you.

Every single insurance company when trying to avoid making a payout considers using that defence.

Oh yea the act of god clause, in most countries it is usless though, in slovenia we went arround that clause by insuring for specific disasters or problems if you inshure for fire and your place burns down you get paid no mattter if lightning caused the fire, though if it gets hit by a hurricane your fire insurance is worth shit.the act of god clause was a big hit in the 16 hundreds where the insurance guy would say yea you pay me and if something happens to your stuff il pay for the damages, then lightning strikes your house and it burns down he says well that is clearly an act of god he wants you to lose your hous i cant pay you. A nother win for christian morals.To not go so far off topicHow can you promote any religions creation story if that religion is only in place to screw whit the poor people.

There are 2 types of people: one type uses knives to cut bread and another type that uses knives to stab you in the face.
Religion has been used for good and bad.Teaching a non-scientific subject as science is the mistake IMHO.

I think ORGANISED religion should be banned altogether, you wanna pray and and accept jesus as your savior be my guest but do it at home dont go selling your religion at mass, or on tv and then laugh how gullable those idiots are for giving you their money. Or at least it should be TAXED hard. And a restraining order from schools at least one mile away.

yes

Also we could throw 'em to the lions, it totally worked for Nero.

No some publick flogging would do No seriusly organised religion should be Taxed like any other organisation. Edited by frako, : No reason given.

An interesting fact http://www.associatedcontent.com/...and_intelligent_pg3.html