Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes

[michaeledward]

this is symantics of a sort... you are assuming that God created man with the exact same numebr of ribs that He eventualy gave to women... I can assume then, for the sake of this issue, that God gave Adam 1 extra rib to start with, which in turn hHe used to create women... couldn't I correct in my assumtion?

And since you are jumping to the conclusion that this assumed contradiction disproves Genesis immediately, can you tell me why there are no transitional types of fossils (amonsgt the billions of fossils that have been found), showing once-and-for-all exclusive proof of linkage from one form of life to another... lets say... oh...fish to amphibians... etc.. such as evolutionists claim?

Thanks.. waiting for a serious answer...

I am making no assumptions. I am jumping to no conclusions. I am quoting from the 'Literal Word of God', that Woman was created from the 'rib' of man. I am trying to understand how when God took that rib, there was no space or gap left in man's anatomy. Also, I am not asking your assumptions for the sake of the argument. I would like a definative answer. There is a big difference between 'The Literal Word of God' and you 'assumptions'. One of which I can ascribe certainty. It is not a symantic argument. I am simply asking the questions any seven year old may ask.

I will refrain from addressing the question onf 'linkages' in this thread. There is certainly enough science available for the questioning mind in that regard. Let us stay on the topic of Biblican Curriculum.

 

[qizmoduis]

OOPS, double post.

 

[qizmoduis]

Absolutely, as long as they teach other creation stories besides just the Christian one, to keep things diverse and colorful. They do teach Shakespeare, but they also teach Chaucer, Longfellow, and Plimpton. (Well, they did at my school, anyways....)

Clarify that: Creationism can be taught alongside other religious creation mythologies in a comparative religion (or something similar) class. Just not in science. Creationism, egyptian mythology, buddhism, etc., are not science and don't belong there.

 

[qizmoduis]

my point was not to start talking about abortion... my point was simply to address the fact (as had been given) that simply because the supreme court sez something, doesn't make it right...

And simply because the christian bible or your local religious leader says something, also doesn't make it right. The job of the supreme court is not to determine morality, but rather to determine whether or not a particular law is in agreement with the letter and principles of our constitution (among other things).

 

[michaeledward]

Well, I honestly didn't think we were going to decide on a curriculum today, but just agree there's no harm in teaching different religions in the school.

Warning .... this post may actually border on thoughtful, and I was doing my best to avoid that in this thread.

I guess it would depend on where the 'religion' was being taught and what the goal of teaching 'religion' would be.
Religion might have a place in a literature class. The Bible is one of the great sources of Western Liturature. We could also look to the 'Tora', 'Koran', 'I Ching' as liturature references.
Religion might have a place in a humanities class. Understand the different cultures of the world through their practices of religion is a powerful way to gain insights into the differences among societies. (See Huston Smith's 'The Religions of Man)
Religion might have a place in a history class. Showing how societies have implemented religion in to culture, and vice-versa.
Religion, however, has no place in the science classroom. Of this subject, there is no debate among even the most religious, such as 'The Pope' and 'The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury'. They believe in Darwin's theory of evolution.

Incedentally, if you lost a finger on the job in an accident, and later your wife had a child, would he have only 9 fingers?

If having 9 fingers in some way was advantageous for my survival, and if it gives me an advantage over the 10 fingered clods, then yes.

 

[Makalakumu]

Take teh time to read the post, then address the points on it.. dont simply side step them... that doesn't seem very... "scientific" of you in your study...

I read your post. The arguments are similar to what I've heard before...philosophical ramblings on the nature of science, for the most part.

For the sake of this discussion, I am willing to consider "creationism" a theory. Lets try and interject a little more observation into this discussion. Creationism explains things in its own way and so does evolution.

Its time to put the money where the mouths are. Let the proverbial, you show me yours and I'll show mine, contest begin.

:asian:

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

I used to be a proponent of evolution.. the "facts" convinced me otherwise.

Facts please...otherwise its just a philosophical pissing contest.

It seems to me that it is the evolutionists who are cramming their personal religious belief in an unproven theory down the throat of everyone else, while at the same time attempting to silence any other competing positions... not the bible believing fundamentalists... we are just trying to get a word in edgewise in a society rife with mini-gods and ACLU and activist judges etc... we can't have a sensible discussion when we're not allowed to present our side publically in the same environment eh?

No body is banning anything here. Present some creationist explanations and we'll see where it goes...

 

[Mark Weiser]

I wanted to suggest how about a quick post on the scientific method that way we have a basis in which to start the debate.

Assumption(Basic) -- Hypothesis -- Test Hypothesis ( at this point you gather facts) -- Conclusion ( Reject, Modify, Accept) if accept you Expand or test further -- New Scientific Model or Theory.

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

This is the proper way we should test all things in life if we as intelligent beings will be intelligent lol!

 

[michaeledward]

This is not presented as Hypothesis. We don't need to trouble with that. We have the Bible. From Genesis chapters 1, 2, 3, & 4.

• God Created Adam
• God Created Eve from Adam's rib
• Adam and Eve parented two sons, Cain and Abel.
• Cain Killed Abel because God is more pleased with Abel's gifts.
• Then Cain gets married ... but to whom? Who was Cain's wife; his mother or his sister?
• And Cain's son Enoch builds a city ... population 4 (or is it 5) ... can you really call it a city?

Just a few questions.

 

[loki09789]

Yes, because creationism in any way, shape, or form qualifies as a scientific theory.

I was comforted by the fact that 68% of respondants on the poll to the side said no--then I realized it's the CNN webpage, and online polls mean nothing anyway.

No it is not, and if it were to be given 'equal time' in an educational model, it should be done in English class because it can be included in a "Diversity" unit on the beliefs/myths/philosophies from other cultures.

I don't see anything wrong with this 'idea' as long as it isn't being taught in science class because it is not the correct content area for it.

Scientific theories in science class. Philosophical/mystic views in 'theory' classes. At the public school grades that really only leaves English/ELA class. Even there, it should be done as a way of 'surveying' the different ways that people view the world and not a 'one way' view.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

loki09789:

As I told someone else, I meant what I said, at least the first part of that quote, to be sarcastic. I really don't believe creationism to have any scientific value.

I now know to make my use of sarcasm much more blatant when talking online.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Hi parmandjack, I'm not surprised to see you back here.

umm.. incorrect... while your liberal use of "big words" sounds impressive to the uninitiated, they don't change the fact that "evolution" is as it was, an attempt to present our existance as the result of the following equation...

nothing + time = everything... thereby negating the requirement of a God

That is not the theory of evolution and natural selection, but thanks all the same.

...that is a bold faced lie... while it is an UNPROVEN theory, it is presented and pressed in schools, media, museums, etc as "fact"... while in "fact", quite a large number of people on all these threads stand in their proverbial "pulpits" hammering away that evolution is a fact based on solid science... while "creationism" isn't, or in your wording... "ain't it"... why is that? why is it that a piece of data examined by a scientist who believes in evolution and who reviews that data with his personal bias towards evolution, is given more credence than the results of a scientist who reviews the same piece of data, but determines that evidence contradicts the evolutionary theory and instead supports a "Creation" base?

Two things:

1) In science, we rarely if ever say something is "proven". That is language that is based on faith. We show evidence which supports or does not support a theory.

2) You are trying to set up an imagined situation where two scientists disagree on where their personal biases lie. Science is a social/group effort, and it changes over time (although, as Mark has stated, the process of inquiry remains the same). If the vast majority of scientists can come to a consensus about evolutionary theory, that is our best bet for a good theory.

Of course, this all makes people who want to find The One Truth very uneasy, since, of course, "the Truth" has changed over the centuries.

... well, i'm glad to see that you note this as your opinion, but your opinion added to the "opinion" of the teacher, doesn't really change the fact that the "theory" of evolution is under assault from the scientific community also, admittedly slow, but building all the same, regardless of your personal opinion on this matter...

...oh... I see we are back to disparaging comments about the intellectual capacity, cognative abilities and logical skills of those who oppose your opinions and positions, this seems to be your back up plan in most of these strings regarding topics of this nature... what do you do in the dojo or on the street when you're beaten, call them names too?

Unnecessary and a nasty belittling tone. If I have an opinion on an issue, and yours differs, that is pretty normal. However, if you insist that a non-scientific concept is Science, then, as a scientist, I am at liberty to tell you why you are incorrect.

Unless of course you want to get to the point where everyone's opinion is "correct", no matter what they say. In which case I'm sure you'll be all for gay civil unions, right?


Actually, I understand a great deal about science and proposed "theories", I simply choose, unlike you, to use common verbiage to describe my position as opposed to vomiting dictionaries to impress, or perhaps as an attempt to brow-beat my opponents...

"vomiting dictionaries"? Yes, that's very much the "common verbage". I don't see brow-beating so much as calling you on some evidence.

Unlike you, I have not blinded myself to the scientific realities that abound in the field of Origins science..., and that commpletely disprove the goo-to-guy fantasy religion of evolution. I used to be a proponent of evolution.. the "facts" convinced me otherwise.

"goo-to-guy"? Come on now. I mean really.

... well, you are corrert about the dark ages... but my original statement stands, regardless of your denial of it...

Well, no, I think he pretty much addressed the Christian = science idea you were trying to get away with. Guess we shouldn't thank all those Muslims for preserving texts and science during the Dark Ages, eh? And faggetabowt the Asians - what did they ever do?

As for "stamping out other forms of intellectual competition.. doesn't it appear to you that that is exactly what you and the proponents of evolution are trying to do when confronted with differing theories, such as creationism... you immediately commence with ad hominum attacks and flippent dismissals of readily verifyable data, simply because they destroy your position.

I think we're all just waiting to review the evidence you'll put forth to support your theory. My foot remains firmly on the ground at this point.

...s'funny that while you condemn scientists who also happen to be christians as moronic fanatics who don't perform real science, simply because their position contradicts your 100 hours of high school and college classes, you still deny that science flourished via the spread of christianity.

Hi there. Nice to meet you. I'm a scientist and a Christian - although, as you addressed in other threads, you have dismissed my faith out-of-hand. Way to only see what you want to see.

... who's denying facts (other than you and other evolutionists)... its a fact that soccer was originated in Scotland, its also a fact that golf originated in Scotland... are they the world champs these days? nope... thats also a fact... so what's your point? that was really a rhetorical question.. i'm not interested in your point.

Then why argue if not interested in what others have to say? You don't want a conversation, you want a mass conversion. Not likely.

.. actually, they have passed numerous peer reviews.. however, secular dominated mag's simply refuse to publish opposing views from scientists who don't believe in evolution, I could inundate you with proofs, but you would simply dismiss them as you have all others...

On no - innundate away.

...a note to you here would be to point out, since you dont seem to be aware of this, that not all scientists who disagree or refute evolutionism, believe in or are automatically aligned with creationism, or even consider themselves christian, or for that matter, support the bible... they simply dispute evolution as a workable theory because the facts prove otherwise...

Please show.

... so with regard to your statement above that simply because facts agree with your position doesnt make them facts... take that lucid comment to heart and apply it to your own position... mirrors are wonderful things you know...

This is disintegrating quickly.

... he's right... but in his narrow minded bias doesnt understand its just as true when applied and used as a filter for his own proposed position.

But of course this couldn't apply to you, either.

Why are YOU (read evolutionists) so terrified about letting the theory of creation be taught in classrooms as an alternate to evolution?...

Because...

1) The vast majority of scientists agree creationism is NOT science

2) Because the kids creationists want to target are too young to understand theories and needs for evidence, they are being targeted at ages where they will simply "believe" and not seek more evidence.

if the theory of evolution was so rock solid, then it should be able to stand up to the light of public scrutiny of the supposed facts used to support it, as well as all the facts against it... wouldn't you agree? If however via this public scrutiny it cannot be proven as a valid theory, then obviously there must be some other explanation for our existance... hmmm... seems to me that thats what creationist theory is all about... and if held up to public scrutiny, shouldn't it (creationism) be destroyed as quickly as evolution once all the fact are displayed if it is in fact, "nonsense"?

Again, targeting kids is not "public scrutiny". Public scrutiny is asking the scientific community. And they continue to debate and give answers.

It seems to me that it is the evolutionists who are cramming their personal religious belief in an unproven theory down the throat of everyone else, while at the same time attempting to silence any other competing positions... not the bible believing fundamentalists... we are just trying to get a word in edgewise in a society rife with mini-gods and ACLU and activist judges etc... we can't have a sensible discussion when we're not allowed to present our side publically in the same environment eh?

I have not crammed my personal religious beliefs down anyone's throat, thank you very much.

Mini-gods? What?

Present "your side" in the scientific community, and see where it goes.

 

[loki09789]

loki09789:

As I told someone else, I meant what I said, at least the first part of that quote, to be sarcastic. I really don't believe creationism to have any scientific value.

I now know to make my use of sarcasm much more blatant when talking online.

No innuendo intended. Just hit quote as I was reading through instead of reply for the sake of speed. My point dovetailed off of your comment (understood to be sarcastic/ironic) so I used it. No prob.

 

[rmcrobertson]

It's time to demand that science and evolution be taught as part of every Sunday School curriculum, and that evolutionary biology be given equal time in every church in the country.

After all, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. If religion is science, then science is religion, and we need to step into this erroneous teaching across the nation, so destructive of values and thought.

Incidentally: it remains significant that creationists automatically jump to issues such as abortion at every opportunity, since for them evolution is only one part of the entire godless, "secular humanist," agenda they seek to erase. If they're honest, they'll tell you that a) they want fundamentalist Christian prayer pushed daily in all schools, along with the Pledge; b) paddling reinstated; c) an end to all sex ed; d) the censorship of godless works from libraries; e) girls and women taught about their secondary place in God's Plan; f) homosexuals screened and removed from all classrooms. But don't take one's word for this by any means. Look up what they actually say.

There are nice theorcracies in Iran, this time of year.

 

[loki09789]

It's time to demand that science and evolution be taught as part of every Sunday School curriculum, and that evolutionary biology be given equal time in every church in the country.

After all, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. If religion is science, then science is religion, and we need to step into this erroneous teaching across the nation, so destructive of values and thought.

Incidentally: it remains significant that creationists automatically jump to issues such as abortion at every opportunity, since for them evolution is only one part of the entire godless, "secular humanist," agenda they seek to erase. If they're honest, they'll tell you that a) they want fundamentalist Christian prayer pushed daily in all schools, along with the Pledge; b) paddling reinstated; c) an end to all sex ed; d) the censorship of godless works from libraries; e) girls and women taught about their secondary place in God's Plan; f) homosexuals screened and removed from all classrooms. But don't take one's word for this by any means. Look up what they actually say.

There are nice theorcracies in Iran, this time of year.

Can't do it, different 'institutions' so how/why each is run is different. They also have different 'bosses' so they don't follow the same rules.

Churches/faith institutions are designed to perpetuate a certain faith way.

Governmental institutions (at least democratic ones) are suppose to offer a fair and equitable representation of the diverse ideals that the make up the citizenry. If that means finding an appropriate place for 'faith views' then I am fine with that - as long as it is done in the appropriate setting (ELA or GLOBAL but not science class) AND it doesn't become "Creation is superior to Evolution" or some BS like that but is presented 'fair and equitably.'

Doesn't mean that you have to agree with it, just that you have to respect that it deserves to be acknowledged.

Many here respect and admire the ancient cultures that inspired the martial arts, but I don't seem to see that same acknowledgement about a 'homegrown' issue of cultural difference.

 

[heretic888]

umm.. incorrect... while your liberal use of "big words" sounds impressive to the uninitiated...

If you were actually "initiated" or had any inkling of what you were talking about, you would know the term evolutionism refers to a philosophical position popular in mid-to-late 19th century anthropology and sociology (including its cruder manifestations as Social Darwinism, from which we get the term "survival of the fittest" --- a term that Darwin himself never used). It has nothing to do with biology per se, and cannot be reasonably applied to the broad range of individuals that you are attempting to label.

Evolutionism was later supplanted by structuralism (a la Levi-Strauss), which itself was supplanted by poststructuralism (a la Derrida). Ironically enough, poststructuralism is increasingly giving way to a more dynamic, non-unilinear model of sociocultural evolution as outlined by thinkers such as Jurgen Habermas, North Alfred Whitehead, and Ken Wilber.

The modern use of "evolutionism" by so-called "creationists" is a fantasy devised by fundamentalist scientists and philosophers that have a desire to try and "even the playing field" by portraying the biological theory of evolution as some type of metaphysical ideology --- which, as any sane scientist will tell you, it is not. Most of these individuals have no idea as to the content of evolutionism's original meaning, as a form of unilinear sociocultural progress.

I did note the use of the dreaded "L-word" to denigrate one's detractor, however. Always a surefire sign that the speaker is more concerned with ideology than statistical evidence.

...they don't change the fact that "evolution" is as it was, an attempt to present our existance as the result of the following equation...

nothing + time = everything... thereby negating the requirement of a God

This position is typical of many "creationists", and evinces a fair degree of transference on the part of the critic. It is, in essence, an attempt to collapse "evolution" and "atheism" into some sort of bastard child that science most definately does not espouse.

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but in the 8 or so natural science courses I've taken (between two high schools and two colleges), not once was I ever presented with the notion that the theory of evolution "negates" God --- although God is not "required" for evolutionary theory to work --- nor, does it negate anything necessarily religious or supernatural in nature.

In fact, there is no philosophical or metaphysical content to evolution whatsoever. It neither supports nor refutes the existence of God.

You also seem to be collapsing Big Bang Theory (the province of physics) and the Theory of Evolution (the province of biology). Again, no big surprise here.

...that is a bold faced lie... while it is an UNPROVEN theory, it is presented and pressed in schools, media, museums, etc as "fact"... while in "fact", quite a large number of people on all these threads stand in their proverbial "pulpits" hammering away that evolution is a fact based on solid science

Before you go around calling me a liar --- which, by the way, is considering sniping and very much against MartialTalk's code of conduct --- I would suggest you get your facts straight.

First off, all theories are "unproven". But, the point you seem to be missing, is that a theory is a really big deal in science. Our knowledge of cells is also an "unproven theory". We refer to it as the Cell Theory. A theory is simply a time-tested hypothesis. In no way are they unquestionable "facts", but they also are far more than speculative ideas devoid of scientific evidence (which is the common argument that "creationists" like to call upon).

Secondly, your notion that evolutionary theory is presented as "fact" is not something that agrees with my personal experiences in science. Even in my philosophy class (which was very sympathetic to theism), evolution was always presented as fluid theory that may be supplanted in the future.

Perhaps you could draw some citations from reputable journals or institutions that have presented the theory as such?? While you're at it, why don't you draw specific quotations as to who on this board has presented evolutionary theory as "fact"??

why is that? why is it that a piece of data examined by a scientist who believes in evolution and who reviews that data with his personal bias towards evolution, is given more credence than the results of a scientist who reviews the same piece of data, but determines that evidence contradicts the evolutionary theory and instead supports a "Creation" base?

Communal confirmation (or rejection), a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Karl Popper called it falsifiability.

So-called "creation science" has been overwhelmingly rejected by peer-reviewed scientific panels and journals. Conspiracist speculations concerning the great "atheist agenda" can be called upon, but these have no supporting evidence --- and, in fact, fly in the face that the vast majority of scientists in the world are Christians.

Of course, as with your speculations on "unproven theories", all this simply indicates you don't have a very solid grasp of the scientific method. I would suggest reading a little Thomas Kuhn before arguing specific theories.

... well, i'm glad to see that you note this as your opinion, but your opinion added to the "opinion" of the teacher, doesn't really change the fact that the "theory" of evolution is under assault from the scientific community also, admittedly slow, but building all the same, regardless of your personal opinion on this matter...

Sure, evolutionary theory is under attack by members of the "scientific community" that have never tested their findings before peer-reviewed panels or journals without being flat-out rejected.

Listen, just because a few scientists on the fringes of their respective disciplines are "attacking" evolutionary theory does not mean they have anything resembling a solid case. What is required in science is communal verification of evidence. These "creation scientists" have overwhelmingly failed this criteria time and time again.

If every hypothesis in science expounded by a handful individuals was valid, without recourse to communal verfication, then the discipline would be an absolute mess. Anyone with a degree could put forward ideas without having to "prove" them to their peers. There is a reason they do things the way they do.

Actually, I understand a great deal about science and proposed "theories", I simply choose, unlike you, to use common verbiage to describe my position as opposed to vomiting dictionaries to impress, or perhaps as an attempt to brow-beat my opponents...

You have yet to evince this "great deal" of understanding. You perpetually demonstrate an ignorance of the scientific understanding of both theory and falsifiability. Attributing this ignorance to "common verbiage" doesn't change this.

Also, since you are specifically talking about the field of science and its criteria, yet decline from using said field's definitions it is rather disingenous to make claims that you are trying to speak to the "common man".

Unlike you, I have not blinded myself to the scientific realities that abound in the field of Origins science..., and that commpletely disprove the goo-to-guy fantasy religion of evolution. I used to be a proponent of evolution.. the "facts" convinced me otherwise.

Last time I checked, convincing a like-minded neophyte is not a valid substitute for convincing a peer-reviewed scientific panel. This is something your "origins scientists" have yet to do.

... well, you are corrert about the dark ages... but my original statement stands, regardless of your denial of it...

Okay, no you are leaping into the realm of the absurd.

If my analysis of the Dark Ages is correct, you is your original statement still valid. This is basically akin to saying, "well, you make an excellent point --- but I'm still right, even though I don't have the evidence to support my position".

Last time I checked, ideological rigidity does not trump hard evidence.

As for "stamping out other forms of intellectual competition.. doesn't it appear to you that that is exactly what you and the proponents of evolution are trying to do when confronted with differing theories, such as creationism... you immediately commence with ad hominum attacks and flippent dismissals of readily verifyable data, simply because they destroy your position.

I'm afraid your collapsing concepts. Again.

The brutal and violent oppression of all intellectual "competition" in the Dark Ages cannot be compared to scientific criteria for falsifiability. Just because you believe something to be true --- and the vast majority of the scientific community does not --- does not mean you are a victim.

And, to note, your "data" has yet to be verified --- at least not by any peer-reviewed panel.

...s'funny that while you condemn scientists who also happen to be christians as moronic fanatics who don't perform real science, simply because their position contradicts your 100 hours of high school and college classes, you still deny that science flourished via the spread of christianity.

Its actually quite sober. "Science" did not spread through Christianity, it spread through secular humanism during the Renaissance and Age of Reason (precisely as a reaction against traditional religion). Before this time, "science" was severely frowned upon by the Church (re: Galileo).

Simply uttering your beliefs over and over does not make them any more true.

... who's denying facts (other than you and other evolutionists)... its a fact that soccer was originated in Scotland, its also a fact that golf originated in Scotland... are they the world champs these days? nope... thats also a fact... so what's your point? that was really a rhetorical question.. i'm not interested in your point.

Of course you're not interested --- because it actually has factual support.

The simple truth is that "science" is flourishing just as well in non-Christian nations like Japan as it is anywhere else. Your notion that science is "brain-dead" in non-Christian societies is just flat-out untrue.

.. actually, they have passed numerous peer reviews..

Sources, please.

however, secular dominated mag's simply refuse to publish opposing views from scientists who don't believe in evolution

Ah, the good old conspiracist speculation that there is a "secular atheist agenda" to stamp out those poor wittle "creationists". Just ignore that there is no evidence to support these ideas --- and the fact that the vast majority of scientists are Christian.

I could inundate you with proofs, but you would simply dismiss them as you have all others...

You made this claim once before, on another thread. It was equally dismissed then, too.

Same old song. The "well, I have proof but I can't show it to you because you're obviously not good enough to understand it" argument doesn't fool anybody here.

Simple problem is that by refusing to show proof you are failing the burden of proof. Ergo, your speculations must be concluded to be full of poppycock.

Heh. Laterz.

 

[Rich Parsons]

umm.. incorrect... while your liberal use of "big words" sounds impressive to the uninitiated, they don't change the fact that "evolution" is as it was, an attempt to present our existance as the result of the following equation...

nothing + time = everything... thereby negating the requirement of a God

I disagree.

God can be defined as Nothing or as everything, and thereby in the equation.

You can also have a creator/Gaia/God/Ancestor/..., that started out with nothing created, and then allowed it to evolve.

The error of the God Created it all and there is nothing else to do, is that then there is no free will (* A big thing for most Christians I know who are educated in theology *) and either it is all predetermined, or it is exactly the same as it was in the beginning with no learning.

Personally, the evoloution theory does not exclude any divine intervention of guidance.

As to your comments about presented as absolute truth, there is no absolute truth, especially in religion, hence the word faith.

I still think it is wrong to have the Word God on our Money. I think it is wrong to have it in the Pledge, I think it is wrong to have religion taught in a public school.

Yet, it seems that my views do not exclude others, and allow others to make up their own mind. Yet, I seem to have lots of religous people telling me the absolute truth of God's words, and how they should be interpreted. I have these same said people who tell me how they insist things should be.

Religions today even the Christian one based upon tolerance, does not teach tolerance. They teach their point of view and if you disagree you are wrong and going to hell.

So, the question I have is why is your faith so weak, that you cannot have other ideas presented to you and your children as possible explanations?

My opinionated thoughts and questions.
:asian:

 

[Mark Weiser]

Rich I agree with you. In the Jewish way of life we are required to educate ourselves to the highest degree possible this usually means exposing one's self to differenet concepts and ideas in doing so we are a stronger and better person in that we glean what is the best and brightest and useful concepts and ideas that will make our life better in doing so we make the world a better place than when we arrived aka birth.

If there was a way to do this across the board I belive the world would be a much happier and peaceful place.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Science, in part of its history, evolved out of humanist thought--itself strongly tied to Christian philosophy by reasons of its own evolution.

One must disagree, otherwise. If we aren't to respect differences between science and religion, and therefore teach creationism is science classes, then there can be no reason not to force the teaching of humanist and evolutionary ideas and theories in churches.

One illustration might be what is currently going on in Holland, where the government is about to require imams and mosques to a) speak Dutch, b) teach basic democratic values.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

One must disagree, otherwise. If we aren't to respect differences between science and religion, and therefore teach creationism is science classes, then there can be no reason not to force the teaching of humanist and evolutionary ideas and theories in churches.

If I may elaborate on this point, and hopefully not be stating the obvious, the same rationale can be applied to the other major current religious issue: gay marriage. By the same reasoning that the religious Right want to impose their marriage norms on society (parrallel with the imposition of creationism in science classes), the government should be allowed to intrude into the churches' decisions by forcing them to marry homosexuals. This is opposed to civil unions, which aren't religious ceremonies.