Evangelicals Hijack Education In Texas (And Beyond)

[smoking357]

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.

Seriously, where do you think I'm obligated to answer your questions? Further, your questions go off in all manner of irrelevant directions that are a practiced pattern of obfuscation.

We'll stay on task, thank you.

 

[PatriotPride]

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

And I thank you for it sir.

 

[PatriotPride]

Seriously, where do you think I'm obligated to answer your questions? Further, your questions go off in all manner of irrelevant directions that are a practiced pattern of obfuscation.

We'll stay on task, thank you.

If you don't want to answer questions, then by all means say so.

Yes, let's please stay on task.

 

[smoking357]

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.

There really aren't two sides. There are no honest "issues." There's science against a tour-de-force of sophistry that pretends to have myth stand on equal footing with science. We're it not for the decency demands of this forum, the language would be far more blunt and coarse, and the conversation would be so polarized that it would have ended long ago.

When the Philosophy professor says "suppose the moon is made of green cheese," he does so for a very limited purpose, and he doesn't invite an astronomical and agricultural refutation of his premise, yet, there's always someone in the class who notes, to the chagrin of all, "but there can't be cheese in space."

In religious cosmological discussions, however, they really do suppose the moon is made of green cheese, and they demand that everyone accept the facial legitimacy of a green cheese moon. They are not so entitled.

To a thinker, it is incredulous to see superstition given the same academic respect as science, and the treatment given superstition is justifiably brusque. Rational thought worked so hard and long to free itself of having to respect mythological texts that we must never allow reason to backslide into the deranged quicksand of myth and superstition.

Failing to hold the line on intellectual rigor is the path to "honor killings" and human sacrifice. The volcano doesn't erupt because god is mad.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Some scientists believe in creationism. That does not make it a scientific theory. Some lawyers may believe in evolution. That doesn't make evolution a legal theory.

You can say evolution is a theory. You can attack the theory of evolution based on the weaknesses of the theory. You can't reasonably say that because the theory of evolution has some weaknesses, that is de facto evidence for a creator. Nor can you say that because there are interlocking systems in the universe that it was then necessarily designed by a greater being.

You might believe in a superior being that created the universe. Without evidence of a superior being's existence, and then evidence it was THAT being who created the universe, creationism becomes what it always has been, a religious theory.

Now, that said, it is possible to find evidence that can be construed so as to support the religious theory of creationism. That evidence may also be construed to support the general theory of evolution. One is first a scientific theory, supported by evidence. The other is a religious theory, supported by the way some evidence can be construed.

Evolution stands or fails only on science. Creationism requires first that you prove there is a superior being, and then that you prove that superior being created the universe.

But herein lies the rub. A certain (very large) percentage of the population believes in creation. It is not proven - it is a faith tradition that has been handed down thousands of years. We (those of us that have that faith system) want to continue to hand it down to our children and to their children, as our parents and grandparents handed it down to us.

Now enter the so-called science-based believers of the evolution religion, which as Darwin intended is a religion to destroy all other religions. There are many more, many holes in the religion of evolution theory than in the creation (or intelligent design) theory, but because the followers of the evolution religion incorrectly yet successfully claim it is not religion, it is the only view that can be taught in public schools today. The high priests of the evolution religion (science teachers) wield their awesome power to corrupt the minds of children teaching that evolution is the only feasible theory of how man came to be. These same teachers know that quantum physics disproves many long held atomic theories, yet they continue to teach those discredited theories. Why?

I am not a 6Ker. I believe that evolution and creation are not only not mutually exclusive, but that they necessarily compliment each other. I am not at all afraid of evolution being taught. Quite to the contrary, I think it should be. I also think that creation theory deserves just as much serious study as evolution.

What smacks me is the fear of the leftistas and evolution theorists to even allow a discussion of creation. Why so much fear? Are they afraid they will lose control of the argument, our the thought ownership? What is wrong with teaching children conceptual building blocks from which they can base their own decision?

 

[Von Mises]

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.

I'd like to offer an alternative viewpoint if I may.

Evolution is a theory with very little evidence to support it. None of which is based in science. Thus the whole “Theory” thing.
Creation, on the other hand, has a great deal of known scientific evidence to support it.

Please note, I use the term evidence, not proof. I have no interest in proving anything. I simply wish to present evidence and allow you to draw your own conclusions.

Let’s start with the “big bang.” The “big bang” theory, does not reconcile with the physical law of conservation of angular momentum. Creation does.

Nor does the theory of evolution reconcile with the second law of thermodynamics. For the theory of evolution to be true, one would have to believe that matter moves from a state of low energy, to a state of high energy.

Then there’s the relatively recent discovery of Polonium 218 radio halos embedded in deep earth granite. With a half life of less than three minutes, the notion of the earth being formed over a span of billions of years is all but dispelled. To date there has been no scientific evidence to refute this find.

I could go on….

Now then, according to Merriam Webster, faith can be defined as “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” In addition, Religion can be defined as “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with adore and faith.”

In order for something to be considered science, it must be observable, or repeatable. The theory of evolution is neither, whereas Creation is.

When considering that the theory of evolution exists outside the sphere of known science and scientific law, it would appear that we are dealing with a religion based on faith.

Conversely Creation fits well within, and is supported by known science and scientific law.

Here’s my point:
The theory of evolution can, by every measure, be considered a religious belief. And Creation is by every measure science, if not considerably more so, than the theory of evolution.

 

[teknickle]

I'm not in the mood for a big drawn-out argument (but I might be later ), so I'll be brief .

What the Bible says metaphorically, is to be taken as such.

What the Bible says literally, is to be taken as such.

Six days is six days. There are actual grammatical differences with writing in the Bible in that distinguish what is a metaphor (parable) and what is literal.

Actually, there were not so many nouns in the Hebrew language.
The word yom is to be interpreted as 'period of time'.
This was used for: day, month, year...any measure of time.

More about that here:
The Meaning of "Day" in Genesis

Anyone that wants to take an English translation as absolute literal (or to counter Christian claims by taking words out of context) is absurd.
For those who can speak at least 2 languages (which is normal for anyone outside this country), then this is easily understood.
Translating is NOT to be done word-for-word.

Words aren't as important as context.

BTW, most of my professional colleagues are Christians.
These individuals work in cancer research (as scientists), security for the largest software company in the world, govt contracts (wrote guidance software for PAC3 missile) and are university profs.

Intelligence has nothing to do with faith.

Oh, and as far as Darwin is concerned...his father was a deacon (or a pastor IIRC), but his grandfather --who had heavy influence on Charles Darwin-- was a devout atheist.

 

[smoking357]

But herein lies the rub. A certain (very large) percentage of the population believes in creation. It is not proven - it is a faith tradition that has been handed down thousands of years. We (those of us that have that faith system) want to continue to hand it down to our children and to their children, as our parents and grandparents handed it down to us.

A lot of people don't want you to hand that down, any more than they want parents to hand down certain racial or sexual ideas. Public schools were instituted to ensure that all Americans held common beliefs.

The high priests of the evolution religion (science teachers) wield their awesome power to corrupt the minds of children teaching that evolution is the only feasible theory of how man came to be.

"Poof" is not a legitimate competing theory. Prove the existence of a "poofer," and you may have something.

Seeking science instead of an intellectual cop-out of "poof" is not a corruption.

I also think that creation theory deserves just as much serious study as evolution.

Not on the public's dime.

What smacks me is the fear of the leftistas and evolution theorists to even allow a discussion of creation.

William Jennings Bryan was a Democrat and a Liberal. The Creationists are Liberals, through and through, but we've forgotten just who are the Liberals and Conservatives.

Why so much fear? Are they afraid they will lose control of the argument, our the thought ownership? What is wrong with teaching children conceptual building blocks from which they can base their own decision?

Because you might as well teach them about the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. You're asking that superstition be accepted as legitimate.

Just what religion's creation story do you want taught?

 

[HICKMAN]

You can't "know." You "believe."

You can't say what I do or do not know. If I know God exists, it's more than a belief. That's not your call.

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.

My bad, I didn't know that you knew me well enough to know what I studied in high school, college or church.

I guess I should take advise from someone who quotes from TalkOrigins, which is an old usenet group that mostly links back to itself like a bad wikipedia and calls itself science.

I gave up laughing at those loons years when they couldn't answer why life still isn't being created and blew it off.

 

[Lex Concord]

Good one. I have to run, so I don't have time to pin down just which fallacy that is, but we'll get to it, later.

Yes, quick quality Googling is a learned skill...you'll find it some day.

 

[Lex Concord]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The point of the thread is that you should keep your religion out of my textbooks.

Mind your own business!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And your business relating to what a child in Texas reads in a textbook would be....

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

A lot of people don't want you to hand that down, any more than they want parents to hand down certain racial or sexual ideas. Public schools were instituted to ensure that all Americans held common beliefs.

Ding ding ding ding ding. And finally a winner. An admission from the left that the role of public education is to shape Americans into uniform thought consistent with their belief.

Thank you no, I am not interested in submitting to the thought police. I think you are looking for Saudi Arabia.

 

[smoking357]

You can't say what I do or do not know. If I know God exists, it's more than a belief. That's not your call.

As a matter of epistemological certainty, you do not know that God exists.

I guess I should take advise from someone who quotes from TalkOrigins, which is an old usenet group that mostly links back to itself like a bad wikipedia and calls itself science.

It dispels the logical fallacies upon which Creationism is based. It's sad it needs to exist. It's sad that a modern people still look for superstition for explanation.

It's sadder that those who appeal to superstition attach some sort of moral implication to the superstition.

I gave up laughing at those loons years when they couldn't answer why life still isn't being created and blew it off.

Life is being created with every gestation.

In any event, is it your argument that if Talkorigins cannot explain why life is not presently being created that creationism is true?

 

[smoking357]

Ding ding ding ding ding. And finally a winner. An admission from the left that the role of public education is to shape Americans into uniform thought consistent with their belief.

Do you intentionally miss the point? Is your consistency in getting it all wrong an act?

I stated a historical fact.

God, man, you get even the easy ones wrong.

 

[LPMan59]

 

[Woodsman]

Public schools were instituted to ensure that all Americans held common beliefs.

What!???

I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt because I don't know what you mean by beliefs. The public school system was intended to provide education so that common people would be able to keep their government in check, from one source I read. Another similar version is below.

Until the 1840s the education system was highly localized and available only to wealthy people. Reformers who wanted all children to gain the benefits of education opposed this. Prominent among them were Horace Mann in Massachusetts and Henry Barnard in Connecticut. Mann started the publication of the Common School Journal, which took the educational issues to the public. The common-school reformers argued for the case on the belief that common schooling could create good citizens, unite society and prevent crime and poverty. As a result of their efforts, free public education at the elementary level was available for all American children by the end of the 19th century. Massachusetts passed the first compulsory school attendance laws in 1852, followed by New York in 1853. By 1918 all states had passed laws requiring children to attend at least elementary school. The Catholics were, however, opposed to common schooling and created their own private schools. Their decision was supported by the 1925 Supreme Court rule in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that states could not compel children to attend public schools, and that children could attend private schools instead.

The rest is at this link: A History of Public Education In The United States

 

[smoking357]

And your business relating to what a child in Texas reads in a textbook would be....

Ensuring the First Amendment is followed and that no American is forced to support an institution of religion with tax dollars, further ensuring that the government respects no establishment of religion. You know, basic Conservative stuff.

I'm just trying to be a good Conservative, beating back all the Liberals who want to impose their ideas on others and use the government for their own Liberal purposes of forcing their ideas on others.

When it comes to religion in a gun group, I'm one of the few good Conservatives around.

 

[smoking357]

What!???

I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt because I don't know what you mean by beliefs. The public school system was intended to provide education so that common people would be able to keep their government in check, from one source I read. Another similar version is below.

Oh, that's good window dressing. Public schools were instituted by Liberal Protestants to ensure children of Catholic immigrants would grow up to act more "American."

 

[Lex Concord]

Which, returning to the call of the original post, is precisely why it must not be allowed into the public's textbooks.

This seems to be your driving premise.

Creationism must not be allowed into public textbooks.

Foregoing the why of your conviction -- that has been quite well hashed out, and I still haven't finished the thread -- I think revelation of your how will be far more entertaining.

The use of the word allowed is very telling, as it implies a belief that both authority and, if necessary, force must be brought to bear on the issue in order to bring about the desired result.

But what body has the authority to allow or disallow any particular subject matter in a public textbook? Government, of course. And in this case, the ordained government body is the school board. It would seem you would be more than happy to have a "higher" authority force this school board to change course. This could very well happen, but not because of anything you post here.

I was earlier under the mistaken impression that you fancied yourself a believer in individual liberty, and less centralized state power. Your advocacy in this case tends to indicate that you are simply another statist, though one of a different stripe than is normally bashed in these parts.

Enjoy your crusade, though I would suggest that, if you really cared, you would redirect your energies, possibly by writing the BoE and pointing out their logical failings (though I would suggest, to be effective, you tone down the inflammatory rhetoric just a bit).

Better yet, if you are truly concerned about the evangelicals (boy, there's a word that can't mean 3,000 things to 100 different people) building a bulwark in the hallowed halls of public education, maybe you should move to the Republic of Texas. I'm sure you would be welcomed with open arms.

There is simply no way around the retort "first, show me a God.

No, there is no way around that retort. There is no proof for the existence of God, even with the laudable attempts by St. Thomas Aquinas and others.

I would have no desire to prove to any man that there is a God. God is someone you see, or you don't.

Not seeing him might indicate that He isn't there.

It could also mean He simply isn't desirous of your company.

 

[Lex Concord]

I love irony...

I'm just trying to be a good Conservative, beating back all the Liberals who want to impose their ideas on others and use the government for their own Liberal purposes of forcing their ideas on others.

The simple fact of knowing you were writing this while I was writing the above gives me, a lover of irony, great joy.

Oh and, by the way, regarding "Conservative" and "Liberal":