Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: aknimitz on January 30, 2004, 07:30:25 AM
-
Boy oh boy - you religous folks are something else :)
From CNN:
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- The state's school superintendent has proposed striking the word evolution from Georgia's science curriculum and replacing it with the phrase "biological changes over time."
The change is included in more than 800 pages of draft revisions to Georgia's curriculum that have been posted by the Department of Education on its Web site. The middle and high school standards are expected to be voted on by the state Board of Education in May, after public feedback.
Superintendent Kathy Cox said the concept of evolution would still be taught under the proposal, but the word would not be used. The proposal would not require schools to buy new textbooks omitting the word evolution and would not prevent teachers from using it.
Cox repeatedly referred to evolution as a "buzzword" Thursday and said the ban was proposed, in part, to alleviate pressure on teachers in socially conservative areas where parents object to its teaching.
"If teachers across this state, parents across this state say, 'This is not what we want,' then we'll change it," said Cox, a Republican elected in 2002.
Educators and legislators criticized the proposal, saying science teachers understand the theories behind evolution and how to teach them.
"Here we are, saying we have to improve standards and improve education, and we're just throwing a bone to the conservatives with total disregard to what scientists say," said state Rep. Bob Holmes, a Democrat.
Social conservatives who prefer religious creation to be taught instead of evolution criticized the proposal as well.
"If you're teaching the concept without the word, what's the point?" said Rep. Bobby Franklin, a Republican. "It's stupid. It's like teaching gravity without using the word gravity."
-
Political correctness gone mad.
-
Sounds like it's not the religious types resorting to an underhanded ploy here.
-
...said Rep. Bobby Franklin, a Republican. "It's stupid. It's like teaching gravity without using the word gravity."
What a hyppocritical moron. Some people (I am not one of them but I support their rights) do not see how you can teach children about the world without using the word "Christ" or even "Christmass" - which is currently forbidden. The responcibility of a representative is to represent the will of his electorate, not pass judgements on their stupidity.
and we're just throwing a bone to the conservatives with total disregard to what scientists say
The scientists have their vote just like anyone else.
As long as we have democracy and socialist education system, it is idiotic to appeal to reason. Neither democracy not socialism are based on reason but on the arbitrary will of a bunch of easily- manipulated morons.
Send your children to a private school or homeschool if you want them taught right.
miko
-
This thread is gonna go to hell in a handbasket, but what the hay! :)
Evolution is a scientific principle, founded and based in scientific, tangible, real evidence. How can we NOT TEACH THIS in public schools?
Religion, as in Christianity, as in Jesus Christ was crucified and rose from the dead blah blah blah is a series of ficticious principles, founded and based in fiction, nontangible, pretend evidence. How can we teach this in public schools?
Nim
-
You knew I'd weigh in, and heck, it's another snow day here (out of school) so...
I'm religious, and I think it's a dumb idea. Call it what it is. But if you are really only blaming religious folks, think again. This is a societal problem, where a school administration and board is bending to the will of the people in the community. That's both good and bad- a school should be receptive to its constituency, but it shouldn't be so to the point of bending to capricious whims.
Now Miko makes an excellent point WRT the hypocritical stance taken by people who advocate taking every shred of religious context out of education. There are important historical implications to religion, and there is a connection that is relevant to schools. But... it's gotten to the point where a teacher can get canned for wearing a cross.
All that's really happening here is the battle between secular and religious values are being played out on the schoolground tableau.
-
Children are always the front line in the battle for ideas.
-
Agree with you to a certain point, Kieren. I think not allowing teachers to wear crosses is a bit much, but as with anything, the question then becomes where do you draw the line? If you allow crosses, can they wear shirts of Jesus crucified on the cross, blood dripping from his wrists and neck? After all, its not a grotesque thing at all from a religous perspective, right?
I completely agree that religion has played a very significant role in history. But religion *itself*, i.e. the teachings thereof and the substance of particular faiths, has no place in schools - imho :)
Nim
-
I wouldn't be surprised if both biblical theory and evolution were both disproved in the future.
lazs
-
aknimitz: But religion *itself*, i.e. the teachings thereof and the substance of particular faiths, has no place in schools - imho
If it's a private school, the teachers should teach children whatever the heck the parents pay them to teach. Majority has exactly what it wants and minority also has exactly what it wants - in it's own private school. Everyone's vote is unanimous and decisive. Everyone bears full responcibility for his decisions. That's the beauty of the free market.
If it's a public socialist school, then you should at least be consistent with principles of democracy and allow the majority to determine what to teach their children.
You cannot have it both ways - proclaim the will of majority paramount but then go against it.
Of course the socialist system was designed exactly for that purpose - to ignore the will of majority, minority and everyone else in favor of the views of an "enlightened" elite.
Public school system exists to break children away from the family influence and family values, not to raise children in their parents' values.
miko
-
Evolution has been hashed and rehashed here and likely this thread will go on and on. You must be bored Nimitz. ;)
Much of what is touted as fact regarding the evolution of the species is little more than conjecture yet accepted by the faithful as scientific fact. I've no problem with it being taught in schools so long as (and like everything else) it is taught truthfully.
-
Originally posted by aknimitz
Agree with you to a certain point, Kieren. I think not allowing teachers to wear crosses is a bit much, but as with anything, the question then becomes where do you draw the line? If you allow crosses, can they wear shirts of Jesus crucified on the cross, blood dripping from his wrists and neck? After all, its not a grotesque thing at all from a religous perspective, right?
-snip-
Nim
I guarantee you if a muslim or any minority wearing any comparable religious ornament came into our school not a single person would say a word. I can also assure you many of the same people who are staunch anti-religious when it comes to crosses and such would be on the frontline defending those minorities' right to be "diverse".
Is a simple cross a threat to kids. hehe. We have dress codes for kids, and they work pretty well. The wearing of religious symbols is not an insurmountable problem until you start dealing with unreasonable people. That's when you have to ban them all, but then, you don't really ban them all- just the Christian ones. It's kind of a "white guilt" thing, only replace "white" with "Christian"...
-
Funny thing is.. the Georgians often point to Alabama and make jokes about how stupid they are.
-
Miko - completely agree - all of my comments are directed at public schools. Clearly private schools can teach whatever they like.
I completely disagree with your comments concerning the democratic majority should control what is taught. The majority of parents cannot opt-out of the Constitution ... after all, thats why we have it?
Iron - I know, I shoulda known better.
Nim
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I wouldn't be surprised if both biblical theory and evolution were both disproved in the future.
I have to agree with that one.
It's funny to watch though... both sides insisting their beliefs are right. Christians with age old "mythology" (for lack of a better word) and evolutionists who've based their whole notion on "It can't of happened that way, so let's concoct a way it could have happened and present it as if it actually happened that way even though we have no real evidence."
Evolution has many glaring holes never proven. There are simply too many assumptions.
-
Hey, if I am a threat to the intent of your thread, I'm gone. Thought you wanted to discuss it, and I also believe it has been very civil.
-
aknimitz: The majority... cannot opt-out of the Constitution ...
They can and they did.
According to the Constitution, the Federal Government has no power whatsoever to interfere with education. All its powers are enumerated and taxing people in order to run a socialist school system and set standards for education is not one of them.
As opposed to limiting the Federal Government, the Constitution sets very few and very specific limits on the power of the States and the People and nowhere does it say anything about mandatory teaching of Evolution.
Schooling changes and makes people. The government is supposed to be made by people and represent people and be changed by the people in the way that suits them - not make and change the people in a way that suits the government.
miko
-
Kieren, wasnt directed at you - you're no threat. Just didnt intend on debating, thats all.
Miko - Separation of Church and State. States create and fund *public* schools, cannot have the will of the majority (religion) imposed on the minority.
Nim
-
Originally posted by aknimitz
Kieren, wasnt directed at you - you're no threat. Just didnt intend on debating, thats all.
lol
you are joking right?
:D
-
Unfortunately, no.
-
aknimitz: Miko - Separation of Church and State. States create and fund *public* schools, cannot have the will of the majority (religion) imposed on the minority.
"Separation of Church and State" - what a lie. Where does it say in the Constitution about Church? Nowhere!
Here is what it says: "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
It sounds to me as much a "Separation of Atheism and State" as "Separation of Church and State". How come atheism can be funded but not religion?
And who "shall make no law"? The "Congress". The restriction applies to US Federal Government solely.
The states can do whatever they damn please as long as they stay republics and abide by very few very specific limitations enumerated in the Constitution.
If you local state Constitution prevents Texas from funding religionus education, you should resolve the issue locally.
I may oppose New York State funding the religious - or any public - schools, but I cannot see how it is anybody's business but us New Yorkers.
miko
-
Miko, do you have any idea what you are talking about, or are you just making stuff up?
From the U.S. Supreme Court, in one of hundreds of published opinions on the issue:
"This utilization of the State's tax supported public school system and its machinery for compulsory public school attendance to enable sectarian groups to give religious instruction to public school pupils in public school buildings violates the First Amendment of the Constitution, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment."
-
Originally posted by aknimitz
This thread is gonna go to hell in a handbasket, but what the hay! :)
You can't say "hell!" It hasn't been proven scientifically to exist... except when you come home after a stage party and the wife says she has a headache - that's hell.
You creationist KREATON! :p
-
Bleh!
-
Fundalmentalist of any religion are scary as hell. Its a matter of time before they start suicide bombing our schools because they teach things other then the bibble.
-
miko is always making stuff up. you see he is not from this country and does not fully understand its history.
-
aknimitz: Miko, do you have any idea what you are talking about, or are you just making stuff up?
From the U.S. Supreme Court, in one of hundreds of published opinions on the issue: made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment."
So what? I disagree with the US Supreme court and side with the Founding Fathers on that issue. Since when is disagreeing with you automatically makes a person ignorant?
Supreme Court made many decisions that directly contradict the US Constitution.
The particular case you cited here was decided by 6-1 vote. So there was at least one Justice (J. Reed) who also probably did not "have any idea what you are talking about, or are you just making stuff up".
miko
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Fundalmentalist of any religion are scary as hell. Its a matter of time before they start suicide bombing our schools because they teach things other then the bibble.
Some are scared of their own shadow. :rolleyes:
-
This is what happens when you teach people that only religion is correct. They dont care about the corporeal world, but are only concerned about what happens after death.
(http://death.innomi.com/uploads/femsuicide.jpg)
-
Originally posted by miko2d
So what? I disagree with the US Supreme court and side with the Founding Fathers on that issue.
In Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, he mentions a wall of separation between church and state. With actions like the Salem witch trials and the use of demonic puritan laws still fresh in their minds, you could see why he would want the separation.
http://grove.ufl.edu/~leo/tj.html
What he is saying is that he too, is a very religious man. But that faith should be between a man and God, not government and God. In other words, teaching your religion at home to your kids and attending church is fine. But it should not be involved in government decisions.
What a man ahead of his time. He had a vision of the future, and knew more religions would be involved as the country grew. By not letting government favor one religion over the other, it keeps everyone equal, and prevents devide.
Recent events in other parts of the world (and from events in the past such as the spanish inquisition and from nazi extermination of the Jews) should prove beyond a doubt what happens w/o this separation. If you don't see it by now, you never will.
Now private school is a different matter, it is private, and they can teach whatever religion they want. But there are cults that you can join for that for free. If i'm goin to spend the dough on private school, it's not to teach them religion. Might as well teach them astrology, at least that might get them a job.
I think one of the problems with the country is the deterioration of the public school system, it was at one time the best in the world.
-
Miko, I dont care whether you agree with me or not. I do care if you support or substantiate what you are saying.
And yes, that 1 justice was an idiot :) What cases are you familiar with, out of curiousity, where the Supreme Court has decided something in direct contradiction to the Consitution.
Nim
-
Originally posted by miko2d
aknimitz: Miko, do you have any idea what you are talking about, or are you just making stuff up?
From the U.S. Supreme Court, in one of hundreds of published opinions on the issue: made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment."
So what? I disagree with the US Supreme court and side with the Founding Fathers on that issue. Since when is disagreeing with you automatically makes a person ignorant?
Supreme Court made many decisions that directly contradict the US Constitution.
The particular case you cited here was decided by 6-1 vote. So there was at least one Justice (J. Reed) who also probably did not "have any idea what you are talking about, or are you just making stuff up".
miko
I empathize with your opinion that the Supreme Court "made many decisions that directly contradict the US Constitution", but that is their job...to interpret a legal document. Whether you like it or not, when your highest court says "This is the law"....well....that's the law.
Technically, their decisions don't "contradict" the US Constitution, but rather reflect a different interpretation of it that you may have.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
All that's really happening here is the battle between secular and religious values are being played out on the schoolground tableau.
Great points Kieran and Miko! All the more reason to keep your kids out of the public school system but some of this mumbo-jumbo does manage seep into the private institutions as well.
BTW been reading an interesting book on creation which has got me wanting to go find out what evidence actually exists for the theory of evolution. According to the various evolutionists cited and the author its spotty at best.
Creation (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0921714785/qid=1075487424//ref=pd_ka_3/104-6449873-0283968?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
Sqrl
-
Ban evolution? I second the motion chairman. The Ayes have it!
(http://www.worldpress.org/images/0911iran.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Squirrel
Great points Kieran and Miko! All the more reason to keep your kids out of the public school system but some of this mumbo-jumbo does manage seep into the private institutions as well.
BTW been reading an interesting book on creation which has got me wanting to go find out what evidence actually exists for the theory of evolution. According to the various evolutionists cited and the author its spotty at best.
Creation (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0921714785/qid=1075487424//ref=pd_ka_3/104-6449873-0283968?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
Sqrl
You won't escape it that way; it permeates our society. Whether it's a battle over abortion rights, the Ten Commandments on courthouse property, gay marriage... it's here. We have to deal with it one way or another. The struggle is much, much bigger than what is happening in public schools.
-
Frogm4n: This is what happens when you teach people that only religion is correct. They dont care about the corporeal world...
Some of "suiciders" are not religious.
Sixpence: nazi extermination of the Jews) should prove beyond a doubt what happens w/o this separation...
Nazi extermination of the jews had nothing to do with religion.
aknimitz: What cases are you familiar with, out of curiousity, where the Supreme Court has decided something in direct contradiction to the Consitution.
I wish I kept record of all the cases I've encountered. I should probably do it in the future. Here is one of the most blatant:
1935 U.S. Supreme Court case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell
John and Rosella Blaisdell, citizens of Minnesota, had entered into a standard loan contract for the purchase of their home. The purchase money was secured by a lien on the property. The loan agreement provided that in the event of default on the debtor’s mortgage payments, the bank could foreclose its lien at a foreclosure sale. At the time the contract was entered into, Minnesota law provided that a debtor had a 30-day grace period after the foreclosure sale in which he could redeem the property by paying off the debt.
However, prior to the foreclosure sale (and after the loan contract had been entered into), the Minnesota legislature had enacted a law that provided that a debtor could go to court and seek a further extension of time in which to redeem the property (over and above the 30 days provided in the pre-existing law).
The Blaisdells went to state district court and sought the extension, which was granted by the court, provided that the Blaisdells made a monthly payment to the bank, to be applied to the indebtedness.
According to the Constitution, "No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . .."
Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did.
But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes set forth the applicable principles:
“The economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of its continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts.
In short, if the state feels like it has interests in volating the Constitution, the heck with the Constitution.
He continued:
Where, in earlier days, it was thought that only the concerns of individuals or of classes were involved, and that those of the State itself were touched only remotely, it has later been found that the fundamental interests of the State are directly affected, and that the question is no longer merely that of one party to a contract as against another, but of the use of reasonable means to safeguard the economic structure upon which the good of all depends.
See? In the olden days the individual and his freedom were supreme but now in the new modern era, the collective interests of “society” would have to prevail, Constitution or no Constitution.
Another issue is that Supreme Court should be a check on the abuse of power by other two branches, not just a court to hear cases. It should not wait for a case to be submitted to strike down an unconstitutinal legislation of executive order.
I do not remember whether there was a case about money but it clearly says in the Constitution that No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts righ next to "pass any... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts".
Kieran: Whether it's a battle over abortion rights, the Ten Commandments on courthouse property, gay marriage... it's here. We have to deal with it one way or another. The struggle is much, much bigger than what is happening in public schools.
It's not so bad from the practical point of view, Kieran. It may actually be easier to bring children up in your values in the hostile environment than otherwise. Make it a game of defying the government and the dumb majority.
There were many more anti-communists in the Soviet Union that here in US where communists did not seem as much of a problem.
You will only lose if you want your children to be brought up properly but are too lazy to do it yourself and expect the "society" to do it. Somehow I do not think you are such a man.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Frogm4n: This is what happens when you teach people that only religion is correct. They dont care about the corporeal world...
Some of "suiciders" are not religious.
Sixpence: nazi extermination of the Jews) should prove beyond a doubt what happens w/o this separation...
Nazi extermination of the jews had nothing to do with religion.
aknimitz: What cases are you familiar with, out of curiousity, where the Supreme Court has decided something in direct contradiction to the Consitution.
I wish I kept record of all the cases I've encountered. I should probably do it in the future. Here is one of the most blatant:
1935 U.S. Supreme Court case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell
According to the Constitution, "No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . .."
Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did.
But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes set forth the applicable principles:
In short, if the state feels like it has interests in volating the Constitution, the heck with the Constitution.
He continued:
See? In the olden days the individual and his freedom were supreme but now in the new modern era, the collective interests of “society” would have to prevail, Constitution or no Constitution.
Another issue is that Supreme Court should be a check on the abuse of power by other two branches, not just a court to hear cases. It should not wait for a case to be submitted to strike down an unconstitutinal legislation of executive order.
I do not remember whether there was a case about money but it clearly says in the Constitution that No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts righ next to "pass any... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts".
Kieran: Whether it's a battle over abortion rights, the Ten Commandments on courthouse property, gay marriage... it's here. We have to deal with it one way or another. The struggle is much, much bigger than what is happening in public schools.
It's not so bad from the practical point of view, Kieran. It may actually be easier to bring children up in your values in the hostile environment than otherwise. Make it a game of defying the government and the dumb majority.
There were many more anti-communists in the Soviet Union that here in US where communists did not seem as much of a problem.
You will only lose if you want your children to be brought up properly but are too lazy to do it yourself and expect the "society" to do it. Somehow I do not think you are such a man.
miko
Miko,
1. If Nazi extermination of Jews had nothing to do with religion, just what was the reason?
2. On a whim, I pulled the decision that you cited and had a read through it, and frankly once you read the whole case it doesn't say what you suggest it is saying. There was no interference with the contractual obligations of the borrowers and that is not what the statute purported to do. Instead the statute modified the time period in which the creditor could seize their house. The obligation (i.e., repay the loan) was not modified or interfered with.
3. Are you suggesting that a document crafted in 1776 and 1789 should, as time goes by, be read strictly and only on the basis of what the words, on their face, say?
-
Good job Clinton News Network!
You cleverly threw in the word "conservative" to replace the word "Religous."
I catch what you're trying to do. Not everyone who reads is dumb...
-
1. If Nazi extermination of Jews had nothing to do with religion, just what was the reason?
Race.
-
Originally posted by Dinger
Children are always the front line in the battle for ideas.
These words i have to keep in mind!!!
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Race.
I'm not sure I understand the difference, or how one defines a Jewish "race". How were white (for the most part) Europeans of the Jewish faith different than white Europeans of other faiths?
Jewish culture one can define. Jewish religion one can define. How does one define a Jewish race?
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
I'm not sure I understand the difference, or how one defines a Jewish "race". How were white (for the most part) Europeans of the Jewish faith different than white Europeans of other faiths?
Jewish culture one can define. Jewish religion one can define. How does one define a Jewish race?
Ur right one cant but the Nazis did.
-
Not sure if it has been brought up, and I realize this is about schools, but seperation of church and state was also mentioned. There is no real seperation of church in state in many area's and cases. Oklahoma has local laws prohibiting liquor stores and "adult toy" shops from being located within certain distances from churches. Churches get tax breaks and other benefits, although those can be seen as charity breaks, but Churches are most definantly for profit.
There are also laws involving being convicted of drug or alcohol related charges within a certain distance of a church. You get stiffer fines and longer sentences. There is no seperation of church and state. It's just not a huge 10 commandments statue in a courthouse.
:rolleyes:
-
Churches are most definantly for profit.
I'm interested to see your rationale for that one...
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I'm interested to see your rationale for that one...
Unfortunantly it's not very interesting rationale. Infact it's mostly personal opinion, I didn't cite sources. The reason it appears to be for profit to me, is all of the pastors I know have a lot nicer places to live than myself, drive nicer cars, and in general are always asking for money. It appears to me to be fancy begging. Where does all the money go? All of the churches around my area have no programs for the poor, no special church functions for the general public. Instead all they have are big buildings, lots of people, and ministers raking in the money.
-
For crying out loud...for such a supposedly open minded, high-moral ground, drum beating, soap-box standing types, you people kill me. Here you are misrepresenting and slaming people of faith, associating them with terrorists and Nazis, and what do you sound like but a but of conceited, self-centered, anti-religious bigots.
I was hoping someone "on the other side of the issue" would notice that this change the is being discussed is being initiated by the secular government, not by a religious institution. Unfortunately, you appear to all to ready and eager to grind whatever axe you have to grind.
I was hoping that someone would noticed that it was not banning evolution, but requesting a change in the wording used. Same subject being taught. As a matter of fact, the language being requested is more in-line with Darwin's original writings. But you are to blind by your anger or bitterness or whatever to see anything but your own prejudices.
Who are you trying to convince, anyway...yourself?
Sheesh...come up with some new rhetoric at least ... please???
Out!
-
Evolution and biological changes over time... isn't that like same thing, except 'evolution' is shorter version and more versatile in use?
I recommend cars should be called as "gasoline automobiles", "electric automobiles" etc., since the word 'car' is too confusing, not precise enough.
-
Seems they are trying to make it a little more palatable? "The Origin of the Species" is theory and many find it offensive or at least not fully substantiated. Their new title would seem to imply more of an observation of measureable events rather than a conclusion based on that observation. A more scientific approach imo.
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
Miko,
1. If Nazi extermination of Jews had nothing to do with religion, just what was the reason?
Miko can certainly answer for himself but I'll answer anyhow: money/power.
-
"Homeland Security"
-
Originally posted by Munkii
Unfortunantly it's not very interesting rationale. Infact it's mostly personal opinion, I didn't cite sources. The reason it appears to be for profit to me, is all of the pastors I know have a lot nicer places to live than myself, drive nicer cars, and in general are always asking for money. It appears to me to be fancy begging. Where does all the money go? All of the churches around my area have no programs for the poor, no special church functions for the general public. Instead all they have are big buildings, lots of people, and ministers raking in the money.
Being from the south, you're bound to be familiar with "Southern Baptists"... I'll guarantee you if you live in a town of over 10,000 people you have multiple Baptist churches there, and I would be surprised to find not a single church has a social program of any kind for the poor. Some churches are big, some are small, but they all reach out.
All the ministers of all faiths I know live middle/lower middle class lifestyles. That seems reasonable to me.
Baptist churches all have deacons and a board of trustees that oversee money collection and distribution. They have state agencies that oversee the books. They have national organizations that check in on them. In short, I don't think you know what you're talking about, factually.
I used to be a race director (running road race) for a small Southern Indiana Baptist Church... I had ideas to boost the number of people attending, and therefore the profits of the race. The minister's response? "No! We do not want to give the appearance of doing this for money. We are doing this for the community, period."
-
Evolution is an "unproven theory"? Wow. Learn something new everyday.
Got to start going to church to keep with the latest scientific advances I guess.
yowser
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Being from the south, you're bound to be familiar with "Southern Baptists"... I'll guarantee you if you live in a town of over 10,000 people you have multiple Baptist churches there, and I would be surprised to find not a single church has a social program of any kind for the poor. Some churches are big, some are small, but they all reach out.
All the ministers of all faiths I know live middle/lower middle class lifestyles. That seems reasonable to me.
Baptist churches all have deacons and a board of trustees that oversee money collection and distribution. They have state agencies that oversee the books. They have national organizations that check in on them. In short, I don't think you know what you're talking about, factually.
I used to be a race director (running road race) for a small Southern Indiana Baptist Church... I had ideas to boost the number of people attending, and therefore the profits of the race. The minister's response? "No! We do not want to give the appearance of doing this for money. We are doing this for the community, period."
When I wrote what I wrote, it was a sweeping acusation for sure, but not a realistic one. I admit this freely. I myself am not a religious person, but I don't balk when friends or family ask me to attend their churches. I know of about 4 or 5 methodist churches that reach out, and actually do things for the community. There are some Southern Babtist churches I've attended, and they make me sick. They are always wanting more money, and all of their community outreach programs cost more again.
Being a guest at all of the churches, I was surprised to see all of the congregation giving 5 and 10 dollar bills, when it looks as if they could barely afford to give a quarter. I assumed then that it would be for things the church offered in return. The only social programs they had where a volunteer daycare, which was only open on Sunday and Wednesday, and they had a "Summer Camp" for the kids. It was a 3 day camping trip that cost each participant 300 dollars. Now if they are collecting as much money every Sunday as they did on the Sundays I was there 51 weekends a year, they could afford to send 20 kids on a 3 day camping trip without charging them 300 dollars. The ministers at all the churches I've been too have all driven nicer cars than me, but again that doesn't mean much.
I'm honestly not trying to offend anyone, but just relaying my experiences.
-
Originally posted by yowser
Evolution is an "unproven theory"? Wow. Learn something new everyday.
Got to start going to church to keep with the latest scientific advances I guess.
yowser
I know this will fall on deaf ears, but the truth is, it is unproven in the scientific sense. There is, what some would call, evidence to support the theory, but as yet it is unproven. To be proven their would have to be a transitionary fossil or living example, an no such example exists.
Furthermore, it is unprovable. The very nature of the theory makes it unprovable. For a theory to be provable you have to be able to get readily reproducible results in a controlled environment. You simply cannot do that with evolution. Even if you could, the fact that it was "controlled" would negate the idea the idea of "natural" selection.
Anyway, not that it matters.
By the way...your bigotry is showing.
-
Originally posted by Blammo
I know this will fall on deaf ears, but the truth is, it is unproven in the scientific sense. There is, what some would call, evidence to support the theory, but as yet it is unproven. To be proven their would have to be a transitionary fossil or living example, an no such example exists.
Furthermore, it is unprovable. The very nature of the theory makes it unprovable. For a theory to be provable you have to be able to get readily reproducible results in a controlled environment. You simply cannot do that with evolution. Even if you could, the fact that it was "controlled" would negate the idea the idea of "natural" selection.
Anyway, not that it matters.
By the way...your bigotry is showing.
Umm, no. Science is a method for testing and disproving theories. If the theory cannot be disproven then it is often regarded as fact. Science can never prove anything to be true, just disprove it. Evolution can't be proved, but it fails to be disproved, repeatedly - which is all science can do.
Creationism, scientific creationism, or whatever you want to call it, cannot be disproved because its main premise relies on supernatural processes that cannot be reproduced by man. It's not science, it's faith, and has no place in a science classroom.
-
Munkii-
All I can tell you is you aren't going to see everything a church offers just by visiting on a Sunday morning. Most churches make enough money to keep in operation and do outreach, but make a profit? Not likely. There are exceptions to every rule, but the rule would be break even.
We (my wife and I) tithe a full 10% of our salaries, as we are instructed Biblicly. I can see where it all goes, and it isn't into the pastor's new car or house.
-
Finally! One of our politicians is busy doing something worthwhile. Our schools have for far too long taken the mere word of a small group of tens of thousands of scientists who, after spending only their entire careers studying only hundreds of thousands of fossils for only a century and a half, have dared to force the "E" word down the throats of our poor, unsuspecting children. Why should we trust science books written by scientists? It's about time our leaders took a stand.
And after we straighten out the biology curriculum, we need to get after the math classes. For example, math books state the value of pi is 3.14. This is based on faith alone, along with the computations of just a few thousand mathematicians. But in Second Chronicles, chapter four, verse two, Solomon clearly states the value of pi is 3. Who are YOU going to believe?
The geology classes need fixing too. They claim the Grand Canyon is millions of years old and formed by a river cutting through rock. Of course they conveniently don’t mention the fact that nobody actually observed the formation of the Grand Canyon and the earth is only about six thousand years old. Plus, rock is way harder than water anyway. Therefore I don’t understand how this could happen so it’s obviously wrong.
Besides, what's all this science got us anyway? Sure, they figured out what germs are, and how to grow more food, make the milk and water safe, and wipe out small pox. So they figured out electricity, made airplanes and computers and put a man on the moon. But how do we know the good Lord didn't smite the small pox virus Himself and carry that space ship up there in the palm of His hand?
Yep. Once we get rid of Evilution let’s get going on the rest of this science stuff.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Umm, no. Science is a method for testing and disproving theories. If the theory cannot be disproven then it is often regarded as fact. Science can never prove anything to be true, just disprove it. Evolution can't be proved, but it fails to be disproved, repeatedly - which is all science can do.
Um, no, I am afraid you are incorrect. For instance, mathematical "science" is used to both prove and disprove.
Let's put your idea of what science is to the test: I say there are giant massive purple polar bears at the center of the earth that use their magical powers to keep the earth spinning and everything from flying off of it. Now, disprove me. You can't? Then it must be true.
See, you have to understand scientific method in order to understand the why something is disproved, why something remains a theory and why something becomes what is called "law" in science.
For instance, Boyles Law, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, Newton's Laws of motion, etc, all started as ideas or hypothesis. Through test they were, and still are, consistently demonstrated to be true.
The Theory of Relativity, Evolutionary Theory, SuperString Theory, etc, remain unvalidated because we do not currently posses the means to validate them.
Argue all you want, but that is the way it is. Geez...evolutionist act all insulted when you remind them Evolution is a theory (and not even a monolithic one at that).
By the way, just for review, this is the scientific method:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
And, point of order, Darwin never observed "evolution" and neither has anyone else. He observed small adaptive differences within a species. Evolution, by definition, cannot be observed because it is biological changes over time. Time being the keyword because generally, evolutionists talk in terms of geological ages (hundreds of thousands of year or more).
In short, since scientific method cannot be applied to evolution, it will remain "theory".
Get it? By the way, theory is not even really accurate. It is more accurate to continue to call it a hypothesis.
Of course, the typical evolutionist is so bigoted and close minded they will thoroughly reject this notion and cringe when they hear it. Sense, logic and science have no place when discussing evolution, after all.
Originally posted by Tarmac
Creationism, scientific creationism, or whatever you want to call it, cannot be disproved because its main premise relies on supernatural processes that cannot be reproduced by man. It's not science, it's faith, and has no place in a science classroom.
According to your notion of what science is, the lack of ability to disprove it (whether natural, supernatural or massive purple polar bears) would class it as science. You can't change your logic and rules in midstream. Why, that would make you seem inconsistent and call into questions to very foundation of any idea you subscribe.
However, intelligent design, while observable, cannot be ultimately proven. There is a point where, based on evidence (or in the case of evolution, the lack of it) that you have to take the next logical step. Based on your established position, evolution would have no place in the classroom either.
Anyway, like I said before, it would fall on deaf ears and it did. Hey, there's at least one theory that has been proven.
-
Originally posted by Blammo
Let's put your idea of what science is to the test: I say there are giant massive purple polar bears at the center of the earth that use their magical powers to keep the earth spinning and everything from flying off of it. Now, disprove me. You can't? Then it must be true.
Your purple polar bear theory is not science, and therefore cannot be objectively disproven, because it is not testable. I said:
Originally posted by Tarmac
Science is a method for testing and disproving theories.
To scientifically disprove the theory, it first has to be testable. The purple polar bear theory is not testable because we have no method to drill to the center of the earth to find them, no sensors to detect their magical powers, or any other means of establishing evidence of their existence even through roundabout means.
Likewise, creation is not testable by any current means, and is therefore not science.
In my mind the only argument against evolution is the one that it is not testable because the time horizon is too long. This draws on your definition of testable - it would take millions of years to recreate evolution on the scale it is seen in the world, but it is possible to see evidence of evolution on smaller time horizons. It's up to your/our/science's judgement to determine whether these small time horizons are applicable to the larger time horizon of evolution.
-
Scientists don't know everything Myelo, that's why they're scientists and not God.
:D
Les
-
Originally posted by Blammo
However, intelligent design, while observable,...
cool, care to point to it?
-
Just look around, intelligent design is everywhere.
Les
-
If a scientist mentions God, then God becomes a factor. Biology is one of these sciences. God has nothing to do with rocket science. Except for maybe advanced calculus, where the concept of infinity is important. Mathematical proof of an infinite point....as we know it. Not the Creator, but science does make a place for God. Without this concept, we couldn't send rockets to the Moon or Mars.
My brother told me, every time a rocket did what it was supposed to do, it was a miracle and not the norm. According to him, the Apollo missions were a miracle.
And we take it for granted.
Les
-
The old Evolution versus Creation argument. Let's have no illusions here. The situation in Georgia is about creationists wanting to stop teaching of evolution and part of the attempt to get religion taught in schools against the strictures of the constitution. This all goes back to the famous monkey trials.
The problems stems from strains of religion that take the bible literally. Anything that contradicts the bible must be fought. The problem you see is that children of bible reading parents will be told by the bible that the world was created in seven days. Then they go to school and learn it's billions of years old. That's a problem.
In actual fact evolutionary theory is science and has nothiing to do with religion. Without going into detail it is wrong to say it's unproveable. People who attack evolution have little or no credibility mainly because they invariably believe that the Earth was created in a week by a supernatural being because it says so in one book written by someone thousands of years ago.
On any rational basis which has more credibility?
The other thing about evolution is that it does not preclude God. It is such an elegant process after all. Natural selection is an obvious process and can be observed.
Creation on the other hand has so many holes in it. Dinosaurs for example, layers and layers of them over millenia. Neanderthal man too. A whole differnt species of man. Not really covered in the bible is it? Plus the fact that every religion has it's own creation myth. As we know every religion believes it is the only true religion. They can't all be right.
But the reality is that evolution and creation should not be mentioned in the same sentence. Religion has no place in science and vice versa. That supposedly intelligent people continue to make fools of themselves in place like Georgia says a lot about the mentality of some people who live there.
-
Let's have no illusions here. The situation in Georgia is about creationists wanting to stop teaching of evolution and part of the attempt to get religion taught in schools against the strictures of the constitution. This all goes back to the famous monkey trials.
I'm all for dispelling illusions, but if you think the push is only one direction, you are sadly mistaken. It's a tug-of-war, and the schools are caught in the middle.
William "Kieren" Deckard
Teacher
Business Technology
Bedford North Lawrence High School
Bedford, IN.
-
Sure Boozer.
Just look to Auburn University.
War Eagle, baby!!!!!!
And that oughta be good enough for you.:D
Les
-
Biology class is interesting for me.
my teach has a degree in biology and a degree is bibolical studies:eek: