Evangelicals Hijack Education In Texas (And Beyond)

[Zephri]

This is awesome! Another thread about Science vs. religion, SWEET!

This thread has high hopes of not solving or agreeing on anything, EVER!


Which is why I'm posting this to give me an extra post :3



We now return to your previously scheduled program. Carry on!

 

[HICKMAN]

This thread has high hopes of not solving or agreeing on anything, EVER!

I'm looking to do neither, I believe in Christ and science. But I don't push either on anyone

 

[smoking357]

Matter can NOT be created.

Your Physics are dated. There is free movement between matter and energy. E=mc2 can be algebraically expressed as m=E/c2

Of course, you can get matter from energy. Matter is the storehouse of immense sums of energy. Look at the energy released in a matter/anti-matter collision.

IMHO... There has to be a God. This place we exist in is just too complicated to just happen.

That's superstition, not science.

I'm not extremely religious, but I know something beyond mere science is going on.

No, you feel and hope there's something beyond this, because your mind resists the idea of cosmic insignificance. You desperately want there to be a universal parent who has a reward waiting for you after all this.

 

[jdhaines]

Evolutionists say that matter came from nothing or it does not have an origin (Big bang theory). But it is impossible because it is against the Law of thermodynamics. Matter can NOT be created.

Evolutionist claim that life was formed from inorganic compounds. That can never be proven. Moreover it is against the law of biogenesis - life comes only from life.

Evolutionists have nothing to do with the origin of matter/universe etc. Evolutionists believe in the theory of natural selection which explains how animals have common ancestors. An evolutionist cannot claim that matter came from nothing strictly because he is an evolutionist.

If evolution was true, we should see in nature millions of ‘missing links’. But where are they?

CB925: Incomplete creatures

Geology is supposed to be be the one branch of science that proves evolution. But when all evidences are examined geology favors creation. Evolution requires intermediary fossils and paleontology can’t provide them. Furthermore they provide many proofs for creation. For e.g.-the human and dinosaur tracks which were found together in Texas. But this is impossible according to evolution because humans came to the world 70 million years after dinosaurs became extinct. There are many other proofs such as Polystrate fossils, frozen mammoth in Siberia etc.

Polystrate fossils
Mammoths
Genetic Language

The human brain has about 120,000,000,000,000 connections. Such complexity can’t come by mere chance. There is enough information to build an entire body in the DNA of every cell of a body. It is written in the DNA language. But who made this? Certainly a language won’t be made by accident.

Complex Brain

IMHO... There has to be a God. This place we exist in is just too complicated to just happen.

I'm not extremely religious, but I know something beyond mere science is going on.

You can't "know." You "believe." I would highly suggest you stop taking random terms you hear others throw out in groups, church, bible studies and really investigate them online, in literature, and from knowledgeable people. It is scary to seek out real answers to things you hold very dearly, but it can also be eye-opening. The links I've included are a quick list but the site does a good job of including additional reading. I've chased many of these things completely to ground and have come out realizing that every claim made by someone from the church ends up one of two ways:

1. It is a "Gap" which will later be filled by science once we are advanced enough. For now, we just "Don't Know."
2. It has already been discussed, researched, and arrived at a conclusion sufficient to accept it as fact.

Not knowing an answer does not require you to insert a magical being. It's ok to "Not Know."

I've heard so many terms thrown at me by creationists: "no new genetic information, Oort cloud, comets prove creation, flood hydraulics, the ark is found, human bones among dinosaurs, Neanderthal was human with diseases, etc. You can chase down the answers to all of these things if you are willing to look.

 

[Roadie]

Because bricks have no other means of being arranged into a wall than by a mason.

Prove that the only means of arranging a universe is by God.

Listen, Kid, I'm not trying to wreck your faith. Please be as devoted as you want. You must understand that if your faith is dependent on some really fanciful beliefs that do not, in any way, affect your relationship with God, you will have a weak faith that is easily dislodged, so you will cling to it, ever tighter, with even more outlandish ideas required to support the original outlandish ideas.

Try to evolve your belief system to something that exists in harmony with Nature and sees God's hand in the regular workings of Nature. Consider being a Methodist. They aren't rattled by Evolution or any other scientific idea. If Evolution is how God wants it, so be it. It's piety is proven.

Is it really necessary for you to do good to your neighbor to believe that you were created in a day out of dust? Kick this one to the curb, and get a more dare I say, evolved, belief system.

"Kid"? lol
I would bet I am older than you.

If you will re-read my posts, I never stated MY beliefs. I merely argued a point. I am not an Evangelical, nor a Methodist, nor do I necessary believe in Denominational-ism at all. I am a Christian, yes, but I do not tie myself to any worldly definition, denomination, church, etc. I am not rattled by science at all, personally, I see the glory of His creation in Science, the earth, the heavens, etc. I see the possibilities of God in Creation, physics, quantum mechanics(God as the ultimate observer?), order, chaos and so on.

As for Methodists, I grew up in a Methodist church, and most of the Methodists I knew/know, are in some way, Creationists. Again, I believe you are speaking from what you THINK you know, and not from any actual knowledge on what anyone believes.

And yet again, as I have previously pointed out, and you have previously ignored, "Creationist" is a blanket term, within that term lies differing factions such as "young earth" "old earth" "intelligent design, but not necessarily the Christian God" and so on.

So how can you imply that Methodists are not "Creationists" when you don't even specify which KIND or Creationism it is you are talking about?
The belief that God created the Universe is central to ANY "Christian" belief. How could it be any other way? Christ, the Son of God. God, who is the Creator of the Universe. Those are basic Christian tenants upon which the rest of Christian belief is built. How can one have faith in God, as you suggest, without believing He is at the very least, the one who started things in motion?

Now, that does not mean that all Christians believe in a 6 day Creation, nor does it mean that they all discount Evolution, some see it as a fallacy, yes, but some see it as a process started by God. The other variations are too many to list here.

This is the problem with the generalizations you espouse. You try to tie everyone into one neat lil bundle under the term "Creationist", but that is as ignorant as saying all Christians believe exactly the same thing, beyond the basics. Obviously you know that to not be true, as you mentioned a certain Denomination you feel is less "rattled" by Evolution. Yes?

The only thing ALL Creationists agree on is that there was a Creator.
Did He start the process and walk away?
Does He continue to guide the process?
Did He create apes, which evolved into man?
Did He create man directly.
So on and so on. All Creationist ideas, all different except for the basic core.

 

[Denny347]

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr:
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded faith."
Thomas Jefferson quotes

The United States was NOT founded as a Christian nation was early stated in the terms of a treaty with Tripoli, drafted in 1796 under George Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797:
" As the government of the United States of America is not, in any case, founded on the Christian religion: as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

 

[Roadie]

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr:
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded faith."

The United States was NOT founded as a Christian nation was early stated in the terms of a treaty with Tripoli, drafted in 1796 under George Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797:
" As the government of the United States of America is not, in any case, founded on the Christian religion: as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Obviously, by reading the 1st Amendment, we can see that our GOVERNMENT is not a "Christian Government" as our Founding Fathers did not want any church to run the government, as it did in England.

That being said, that does not mean our COUNTRY was not founded on Christian principles, as they are two separate ideas.
"We are endowed by our Creator...".

The treaty of Tripoli's wording was used to indicate that we did not have a State religion, as did the Muslims(Musselmen). If you research the treaty, you will find that oddly enough, that phrase you cite was left out of the Arabic translation.

Also, to quote Jonn Eidsmoe, author of the book Christianity and the Constitution

"You make an excellent point when you note that the disputed Article 11 says the government of the United States is not founded upon the Christian religion. The government is not the nation, and the government of the United States is not the same as the state and local governments. In adopting the First Amendment, the Founders clearly intended that there be no established religion at the national level, but they left the states free to have their own establishments. A primary reason for the adoption of the First Amendment establishment clause was the different establishments at the state level -- Congregationalists in New England, Anglicans in the South, Baptists in Rhode Island, Catholics in Maryland, Quakers in Pennsylvania, etc. If I had been a Senator at the time of the ratification of the Treaty of Tripoli, I might have raised my eyebrows at the wording of Article 11, but I probably wouldn't have considered the statement categorically false. The statement does not directly contradict my understanding that the United States was founded upon Biblical values that were brought to America largely by Christians. "

"Those who cite the Treaty of Tripoli as evidence that this nation was not founded on the Christian religion, usually ignore the Treaty of Paris of 1783. This Treaty, negotiated by Ben Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly a foundational document for the United States, because by this Treaty Britian recognized the independence of the United States. The Treaty begins with the words, "In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity... ," and there is no dispute about its validity or its wording."

 

[Roadie]

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.

- John Adams, Works, Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813

 

[Bill of Rights]

Speaking to the initial premise of the thread, I will say the following:

I went to school, 10 of 12 years, in Texas schools. I do not recall any teaching of the origin of the universe that contradicted what I got in (separate) religious education.

And

I heard about this issue from my mother, who was an elementary school librarian for many years. She is also an ardent liberal, and opposes this move on the grounds that organized Christian groups are actively promoting it. I can see her point, but while I disagree that it needs to be stopped for that reason, I also disagree that it should be promoted when it is the public (aka government) school system that needs to be stopped.

Personally, I think science education should take place in science classes and religious education needs to take place in religious classes.... and if I had my druthers, never the twain would meet.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dross]

So then, how would you respond to this question I have seen asked..

"If an orderly wall is evidence of a Master bricklayer, why couldn't an orderly universe be used as evidence of a Creator?"

False analogy. The universe may have been described as orderly, but it's certainly not orderly in the way of a brick wall. I, for one, wouldn't describe the universe (at least the tiny part of it that I know something about) as orderly at all. It seems pretty random to me. What I've seen described as orderly is usually set up so as to make chaos proof of order.

Also, you can't prove science with a rhetorical philosophical question, which is what you've tried to do.

You say that the order you see is caused by a creator, therefore a creator exists, therefore all you see is orderly because it is part of a larger intelligent plan that we can't fully comprehend. This is called begging the question (not the popular usage, but the philosophical usage in logic) which means you're asking too much of the question, namely, asking your conclusion to be also your premise.

 

[dross]

"First, show me the undisputed link between lower animals and man"

There is no "undisputed" link. Just because one thing is in dispute, and another is in dispute does not make them equal.

Example:

Some people dispute that Osama bin Laden was behind the 911 attacks.
Some people dispute that George Bush was behind the 911 attacks.
Therefore, the two theories have equal weight.


Evolution as a general theory has a great deal of evidence to support it.
Creationism as a general theory only has evidence to support it if you first decide to believe in a superior being, and if you then view all evidence in light of that belief.

 

[Bapak2ja]

Evangelicals are scary, uneducated, anti-intellectual, and dangerous.

They need to be kept very far from where serious thought is conducted. They engage in anti-Logic. They start with their conclusions, and they manufacture the premises to support the conclusions.

My friend, you do not know evangelicals. The vast majority are not as you describe. Some are, of course, but not the majority or the mainstream. You are adopting the tactics of the left. Ad hominium arguments rather than dealing with the truth; constructing straw men easy to attack and refute but bearing no semblance to reality; painting everyone with the same broad brush rather than study to learn the true belief system and presenting it accurately.

Respectfully, I suggest you learn before you speak. Please do your home work and then come have this discussion. I will be happy to interact with you about evangelical beliefs if you will do your homework. I value the interaction and debate with knowledgeable critics. It helps me improve my views and my thinking, and it helps the Truth to be seen in the marketplace of ideas. However, it is my responsibility to know the facts before I speak. It is yours, as well.

BTW, I am an evangelical, I hold a BA, two MAs and a Ph.D. in a field that combines anthropology, theology, history and communications. I am typical of most evangelical leaders. I speak three languages. I have lectured in my fields in five different nations. We are not uneducated. We may disagree with you, but we have studied diligently to understand our world. We speak the Truth as we understand it, but we are always ready to adjust our views as new evidence requires it. There are three points, though, on which we will not yield:

1. The Creator has revealed himself to humanity in the Bible.
2. Jesus Christ showed us the full extent of the Creator's love for every human being.
3. Jesus Christ showed us how the Creator expects us to treat one another, how we are to live in this present day—act righteously, love your neighbor, walk humbly with your Creator.

If we are " scary, uneducated, anti-intellectual, and dangerous," it is only because you do not know us and do not want to extend to us the privilege we grant to you—the right to speak freely in the marketplace of ideas. We may not agree with you, but we will not call you names or ridicule your views. We may disagree with your views, but we will defend to the death your right to hold and advocate your views.

OK, I have my helmet on. Start firing!

 

[PatriotPride]

My friend, you do not know evangelicals. The vast majority are not as you describe. Some are, of course, but not the majority or the mainstream. You are adopting the tactics of the left. Ad hominium arguments rather than dealing with the truth; constructing straw men easy to attack and refute but bearing no semblance to reality; painting everyone with the same broad brush rather than study to learn the true belief system and presenting it accurately.

Respectfully, I suggest you learn before you speak. Please do your home work and then come have this discussion. I will be happy to interact with you about evangelical beliefs if you will do your homework. I value the interaction and debate with knowledgeable critics. It helps me improve my views and my thinking, and it helps the Truth to be seen in the marketplace of ideas. However, it is my responsibility to know the facts before I speak. It is yours, as well.

BTW, I am an evangelical, I hold a BA, two MAs and a Ph.D. in a field that combines anthropology, theology, history and communications. I am typical of most evangelical leaders. I speak three languages. I have lectured in my fields in five different nations. We are not uneducated. We may disagree with you, but we have studied diligently to understand our world. We speak the Truth as we understand it, but we are always ready to adjust our views as new evidence requires it. There are three points, though, on which we will not yield:

1. The Creator has revealed himself to humanity in the Bible.
2. Jesus Christ showed us the full extent of the Creator's love for every human being.
3. Jesus Christ showed us how the Creator expects us to treat one another, how we are to live in this present day—act righteously, love your neighbor, walk humbly with your Creator.

If we are " scary, uneducated, anti-intellectual, and dangerous," it is only because you do not know us and do not want to extend to us the privilege we grant to you—the right to speak freely in the marketplace of ideas. We may not agree with you, but we will not call you names or ridicule your views. We may disagree with your views, but we will defend to the death your right to hold and advocate your views.

OK, I have my helmet on. Start firing!

The proverbial inbound.

 

[LLDJR]

A mind is a terrible thing to waste

 

[Bapak2ja]

This is awesome! Another thread about Science vs. religion, SWEET!

This thread has high hopes of not solving or agreeing on anything, EVER!


Which is why I'm posting this to give me an extra post :3



We now return to your previously scheduled program. Carry on!

What the thread does accomplish, though, is give people the opportunity to interact with others who may or may not share a common opinion. The debate is helpful because it allows each of us to re-think the issues and the arguments on each side. It ultimate leads each one to greater understanding of the issues. In a sense, it is like a university logic professor issuing a proposition and requiring each student to respond pro or con. It is a good, profitable learning experience. Sharpen the pens, though, boys—not the knives.

 

[flightsimmer]

Evangelicals Hijack Education In Texas (And Beyond)

Naw, their just taking it back from the theives that stole it in the first place. They made the mistake of trusting the government to do the right thing and they finally woke up and realized the government couldn't be trusted. Well, better late than never.

 

[smoking357]

Respectfully, I suggest you learn before you speak. Please do your home work and then come have this discussion. I will be happy to interact with you about evangelical beliefs if you will do your homework. I value the interaction and debate with knowledgeable critics. It helps me improve my views and my thinking, and it helps the Truth to be seen in the marketplace of ideas. However, it is my responsibility to know the facts before I speak. It is yours, as well.

Cool. I suggest that you may be committing the fallacy of the insufficient sample, but I take your point.

 

[PatriotPride]

Cool. I suggest that you may be committing the fallacy of the insufficient sample, but I take your point.

Does anyone else notice that smoking357 hardly answers a direct question? You'd make a great politician---never answer a questions directly. Instead, let's throw around terms like "red herring" and "fallacy of this that or the other thing" or "straw man" ad nauseum. Reminds me of dancing through a minefield.

 

[Roadie]

Does anyone else notice that smoking357 hardly answers a direct question? You'd make a great politician---never answer a questions directly. Instead, let's throw around terms like "red herring" and "fallacy of this that or the other thing" or "straw man" ad nauseum. Reminds me of dancing through a minefield.

Indeed

 

[dross]

I'm no ally of smoking357, but I've answered all questions directly.