Which religion's creation story should be taught?

That would be up to the anthropologist teaching the class, not some school board.Religious practitioners and other shamans have no business trying to teach such a class. They are not qualified.Comparative religion can only be taught by someone who has some degree of separation from a particular religion. This is to avoid the preaching you would get otherwise.

---

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

yes. no. in fact, this would be as good a falsification of evolution as anything else a creationist could possible dream up. mutations are slight and incremental, not suddenly reproducing another distantly related species that already exists.

---

אָרַח

Dear Jar, Of course not, because any evidence I give is ignored, and then you claim it’s been refuted, even though you haven’t.Classic Evolutionists tactic.JRTjrEdited by JRTjr, : Corrected quotation.

Dear bluescat48,For the sake of getting back to the topic at hand; I promise to refrain from calling Atheism a ‘religion’.JRTjr

Dear Coyote,I was unaware of this ruling.So after 230 years of using the Bible exclusively they decided they should use other ‘religious’ texts.Did you notice the last paragraph?Before that time, the law was called "Administration of oath upon the Gospels" and stated that someone to be sworn was to lay a hand on "the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God." Legislators took out "the Gospels" in the title and changed the language to simply read "Holy Scriptures" in 1985.Hope to hear from you again soon,
JRTjr

Dear Razd, The words respecting and prohibiting do not mean favor or disfavor.Hope to hear from you again,
JRTjr

Dear Theodoric,Ya, I’ve quoted the First Amendment (repeatedly). I know it by heart.The first Amendment says nothing about forbidding an ‘establishment’ of anything.It is, however, a clear declaration that the Government is not to restrict religious expression. I.e. if we have a cross on our states seal the Federal Government can not force us to take it off.So, I repeat my question —Where, in the Constitution of the United States of Americas, is establishment Forbidden?Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr

Dear Arachnophilia, Well don’t leave us in suspense, demonstrate away. You’re absolutely correct. In fact the point I bring out with this is that Dogs have always produced dogs, cat cats, and so on and so forth. The idea that man came from great apes, from lesser apes from some other life forms all the way back to sea creatures, and then to single celled life forms that somehow just popped on the seen is unproven.Give me some evidence that your great, great, X x great ancestor was anything other that a human and I will consider it.Or prove some direct link between fish and amphibians, or amphibians and land animals. Draw me a genealogy showing actual species from one major group to another.Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr

Yes, exactly as evolution predicts. The offspring of something will never be radically different from its parents. No it isn't. You see, humans are still apes, are still mamals, are still vertebrates, and so on and so forth. No you won't, since this evidence has alteady been provided to you. This is the internet. I'm sure you can find the various phylogenetic trees out there.

quote:

---

Religious practitioners and other shamans have no business trying to teach such a class. They are not qualified.

---

Says who? There are many teachers in the system that are religious. Are they qualified to teach? Should someone who accepts evolution be allowd to teach science class? Absolutely. This is because no matter what the beliefs of the teacher, if the course material is properly conveyed, then the course becomes successful. Telling us that someone with no religious background could only teach these courses would be like saying someone with no science education should teach science. It's illogical.Anyone can read a science textbook, and anyone can read a religious text. But for any connection to be made, or understanding, the teacher needs to be fluent in the material.I'm not saying lets bring in pastors and force everyones kids to memorize John 3:16. I'm saying just as it's important for a science teacher to understand science, it is equally important for a religious teacher to understand the religion. How does someone understand the religion, without accepting it as true?Thanks,
Dennis

Since this is about a comparative religion class, I can't see how such a person exists. I mean, he would litterally have to accept every religion that comes up as true. How would that work? Or do you propse that members of each respective religion should teach about it in the class? It would get quite crowded in there.

Hi JRTjr That's all you got? Equivocation on the meaning of words? Sadly, for you, this does not mean that you can establish a state religion in any way.I repeat what I said in Message 292: It's easy to actually read the documents involved you know.America's Founding Documents | National Archives

quote:

---

Amendment I

​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

This is of course written in the english of the times.Respecting Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

respecting
—preposition
regarding; concerning.

---

Thesaurus.com

quote:

---

Main Entry: respecting
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: regarding
Synonyms: about, as to, concerning, in connection with, in respect to, referring to, relating to, with reference to, with regard to

---

Ergo the first phrase of the first Amendment to the constitution can be rendered as meaning: Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, ...
or
Congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion, ...
or
Congress shall make no law in connection with an establishment of religion, ...
or
Congress shall make no law referring to an establishment of religion, ...
or
Congress shall make no law relating to an establishment of religion, ...
or
Congress shall make no law with reference to an establishment of religion, ... That answers your question, whether you like the answer or not is irrelevant.Just because you would like the American history to be richly guided by Christian beliefs, it just is not so. Even the Christianity that was practiced by some people (in addition to many other religions) is not like the modern Christianity and pretending otherwise will not make it so.Americans at the time the Constitution was written were very well aware of the evils that come from the establishment of state religions, with the persecutions and murders of others, and most particularly when the oppressed moved to the colonies and then became the oppressors.For these reasons they allowed for the free practice of ANY religion or related belief but specifically ruled out the possibility of the establishment of a state religion.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : mrclrty

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Learn to read. There is no single Christian/Muslim/Jewish Creation story (although the Qur'an does a much better job of smoothing out the inconsistencies and contradictions); there are at least two mutually exclusive creation myths.As to the contradictions between the newer fable found in Genesis 1 and the earlier fable found in Genesis 2&3, they differ in the order of creation, the method of creation and the very gods themselves.As the Rt. Rev. Bennett J. Sims, Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta in a Pastoral Statement on Creation and Evolution said:

quote:

---

In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man.

---

While both of the fable attribute creation to God, the descriptions of the two Gods are also mutually exclusive. The God found in Genesis one is competent, creates simply by an act of will, never hesitates, is never unsure, but is also separate, not interacting with the creations, aloof and apart. The much older God found in Genesis 2&3 though is entirely different, a hands on tinkerer, learning on the job, unsure, afraid but also intimate, personable, interacting directly and continuously with the creation.If the Christian Creation fables are taught it should be pointed out that they are simply myths, that they are mutually exclusive and that they were never meant as science and were both included in the bible because they were not factual but rather poetic and metaphorical.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Wow.Is it that you can't read or is there a comprehension issue?You live in reverse world?So to you

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

---

means the gov't cannot make any law preventing the establishment of religion?Can you show any legal or constitutional scholars that agree with this?
Can you show that any founding fathers meant this bizarre interpretation?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Comparative religion is best taught by someone who is a dispassionate observer, not someone who favors one religion over another.And it is best taught by someone with a background in Anthropology, rather than a background in one particular religion.Otherwise you are liable to end up with inherent biases.

---

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