Evangelicals Hijack Education In Texas (And Beyond)

[smoking357]

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.

No. The Supreme Court has ruled that Creationism can't go into public schools.

It would seem you would be more than happy to have a "higher" authority force this school board to change course.

If Liberals have forced me to pay for public schools, they've accepted the consequence of seeking redress in the courts for what they do with these public assets.

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.

You can't violate people's rights and extol it as "decentralized power."

 

[Lex Concord]

No. The Supreme Court has ruled that Creationism can't go into public schools.

On what authority?

If Liberals have forced me to pay for public schools, they've accepted the consequence of seeking redress in the courts for what they do with these public assets.

As I said, a statist. Saying you don't like what one side uses the force of government to do no more justifies your advocacy of the use of state force than saying "God wanted me to".

Besides, if you don't live in this district in Texas, you don't have any skin directly in this game, and if you want to claim that your federal tax dollars get sent down there, unless your name appeared in Fortune magazine lately, your share probably wouldn't cover the postage on all the checks.

Also, I don't see you seeking redress anywhere, just moaning on an unrelated board in an unrelated state. I was serious when I said that if this really bothers you that much, you should do something about it. Start a blog, start a group with a blog, post to a blog in Texas. You are wasting your time here.

You can't violate people's rights and extol it as "decentralized power."

So, the smaller tyranny justifies the advocacy of a larger tyranny?

Speaking of wasting time, adieu.

 

[smoking357]

As I said, a statist. Saying you don't like what one side uses the force of government to do no more justifies your advocacy of the use of state force than saying "God wanted me to".

Are you actually saying that one is unjustified in using the courts to seek relief from an unconstitutional governmental action?

Yes, I think you are. That's one of the weaker feints to come out of this thread.

What do you propose in response to an unconstitutional act? Accepting the act, like a docile slave? That is what Liberals usually want.

So, the smaller tyranny justifies the advocacy of a larger tyranny?

I see I backed you into a corner of making up nonsense and engaging in circular arguments.

That win took only a couple moves.

 

[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.

Wow, no snappy comeback for this post? I am shocked.

 

[HICKMAN]

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

says you.

I've personally witnessed two miracles in my life.

Science didn't change things, God did.

Nothing you can say will ever change that.

 

[smoking357]

says you.

I've personally witnessed two miracles in my life.

Science didn't change things, God did.

Nothing you can say will ever change that.

Not "says me." Says Philosophy.

You could see 100 miracles. The definition of "know" has not been satisfied.

 

[smoking357]

Wow, no snappy comeback for this post? I am shocked.

I don't care how many varieties you have. None of it belongs in a public textbook.

 

[turnandshoot4]

And what if this where the Quaran instead of The Bible? Would everyone be for it? It still teaches about God.

How about Catholic Christianity? Not Protestant? How about Westboro Baptist?

 

[bigg cheese]

Back to the actual thread:

.

ALL ORIGINS "SCIENCE" SHOULD REMAIN OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS.

Neither are science, though they have scientific aspects. I am a young earth Creationist, and I agree with Hickman's post several pages back.

The fact of the matter is that both schools of thought, if you pardon the pun, contain elements of faith. Whatever worldview you hold will most definitely color how you see things. As a young earther, I see order in all life, and the universe, and it makes no sense [to me] how order can come from chaos. I've blown up lots of things, shot lots of things, and not once did it ever create something (and I even started with matter on-hand, so no creation necessary).

Both hypotheses have a "god-like" force at their center. For me, mine is more forthright. For teachers I have studied under, and others I have debated, when I present my "shooting and "banging" things analogy" (or similar), saying that nothing came from chaos, they tell me, "yeah, but what if you waited a few million/billion years?"

The gods of evolution are Time and Reason.

With Time, all things are possible, and the entire gamut of the statistically possible, and yet at best mathematically improbable "will" happen at one time or another.

With Reason, man thinks he can solve all unknowns...given enough of the previous god, Time.

Both require the belief in the unknown, and both are faith-based. They utilize scientific means to attempt to explain their belief.

The only difference is that even if I fail to explain something, I still have my God. When the Big Bang guy fails, and both will, he has nothing but himself.

--Joe

 

[Roadie]

I don't care how many varieties you have. None of it belongs in a public textbook.

..and again, you totally miss the point.

 

[jdhaines]

@Hickman: I apologize if that last one came off condescending. I wasn't trying to hit your background personally, as I have no idea what your background is. Most times people make the claims that you did it's because they hear bits and pieces from the people in those groups that I mentioned. A charismatic preacher will discuss quasi-science behind comet ice, or flood hydraulics and the people will go forth and spew those phrases as confusing supports for creationism. If you weren't doing that, then I apologize.

Back to the actual thread:

.

ALL ORIGINS "SCIENCE" SHOULD REMAIN OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS.

Neither are science, though they have scientific aspects. I am a young earth Creationist, and I agree with Hickman's post several pages back.

The fact of the matter is that both schools of thought, if you pardon the pun, contain elements of faith. Whatever worldview you hold will most definitely color how you see things. As a young earther, I see order in all life, and the universe, and it makes no sense [to me] how order can come from chaos. I've blown up lots of things, shot lots of things, and not once did it ever create something (and I even started with matter on-hand, so no creation necessary).

Both hypotheses have a "god-like" force at their center. For me, mine is more forthright. For teachers I have studied under, and others I have debated, when I present my "shooting and "banging" things analogy" (or similar), saying that nothing came from chaos, they tell me, "yeah, but what if you waited a few million/billion years?"

The gods of evolution are Time and Reason.

With Time, all things are possible, and the entire gamut of the statistically possible, and yet at best mathematically improbable "will" happen at one time or another.

With Reason, man thinks he can solve all unknowns...given enough of the previous god, Time.

Both require the belief in the unknown, and both are faith-based. They utilize scientific means to attempt to explain their belief.

The only difference is that even if I fail to explain something, I still have my God. When the Big Bang guy fails, and both will, he has nothing but himself.

--Joe

This is absolutely silly.

1) Science needs no gods. Time is not a God, it is a unit of measurement. It happens. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Belief in natural selection requires no faith. If the theory is ever proven wrong......SO WHAT! The facts are still here, we just need another explanation to try to explain why the facts fit together like they do. It doesn't require faith. Faith means there is no direct evidence. Evolution requires no such thing. It is simply a (possibly temporary) best explanation.

2) No belief in the unknown is required for non-religion. There are simply things we don't know. That's fine. We don't need a magical being to explain them. Faith is not required. Science is absolutely NOT faith based. It is so very much the opposite of faith. We have direct evidence. Here it is. Now, lets try to explain it with a theory. We'll test it constantly, and match new facts up to the theory. If any new facts prove it wrong...then we throw it out and propose a new one. Faith requires that you start with the answer and then find ways to make the evidence fit. It has been stated so many times in this thread alone.

3) Just because you haven't noted any increase in order when you "shot or blew something up" doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Order can certainly come from something like a gunshot or an explosion. Explosions on beaches can create glass which is much more ordered. Diamonds can be produced from explosions which is the most ordered form of carbon arrangement. Flowers and trees take nutrients which are dispersed and unordered in the dirt, along with CO2 in the air and order it into a plant. The disorder argument assumes that there is no outside influence. Everything that goes from disorder to order has outside influence. Natural selection is a great example of the same principle.
It's also wrong to claim 2nd law of thermodynamics (which may be coming next). Entropy is increased in any action. When you set off a stick of dynamite on a pile of sand, the overall entropy will be increased. The entropy in the small area under the stick may be decreased to allow for a more ordered bit of glass to be produced. By the way, entropy has nothing to do with disorder. They are completely different ideas. Entropy has to do with the dispersal of energy. Depending on the perspective, entropy could increase while the overall picture appears more orderly which would go against most people's views of the phenomenon.

4) For the last time, evolution and natural selection have nothing to do with origins. They explain the gradual transition from simple organisms to complex ones, and from one type of animal to another of long periods of time. At the time they are the best explanation of these processes.

it makes no sense [to me] how order can come from chaos.

It is wrong to insert a God into something simply because you don't understand it. Different situations have different explanations, but order can come from chaos just as chaos can come from order. Entropy, chaos, order, etc. can become very confounded depending on the explainer. Hopefully I clarified things a bit.

 

[smoking357]

..and again, you totally miss the point.

That is the point. Read the original post.

 

[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.

That is the point. Read the original post.

Well, at least PatriotPride's point was made, eh?

 

[smoking357]

Well, at least PatriotPride's point was made, eh?

You're trying to hide being a smokescreen of nonsense.

Stop it.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

I don't think you understand what this all is about. You appear to think this is a game about winning arguments on a semi-anonymous gun board. It is not for the vast majority of those present.

Many people vehemently disagree with you mainly because of how you say things. I spent a good deal of time looking through your posts and one of your re-appearing themes is concern for how others view we gun owners. I respectfully suggest you apply that inward scrutiny to how you engage in others in discussion.

You will not persuade by adopting an attitude of intellectual superiority and then demeaning all who do not measure up by hiding behind cliche's of logic and philosophical debate. You've confused what this board does with debate, it is not always a debate to be won. More often than not it is a discussion to be engaged in while respecting others beliefs, feelings, and thoughts.

Through my own experience I have found that winning often doesn't advance the ball, I just end up a winner all by myself. I agreed with some of the things you talked about in your many posts, but most of it was lost in delivery because of your obsession with winning. It's not about winning and its not about demoralizing your opponent to the point where they won't engage you anymore.

That win took only a couple moves.

 

[Roadie]

You're trying to hide being a smokescreen of nonsense.

Stop it.

blah blah blah

..and you go off topic when it suits you, and then blast others for doing, what you perceive, as the same thing.

I responded directly to posts you made, then you decide that my response isn't worth replying to, and you prattle on about off topic, or smokescreen, or ""red herring" and "fallacy of this that or the other thing" or "straw man" ad nauseum".

PatriotPride is right, you would make a great Politician.

This is a DISCUSSION, where people exchange ideas, tangents happen, etc. You make a point, someone responds, you don't like the response, so you use one of your "catch phrases" to get around the discussion.

Are you sure you aren't Whitehouse Press Secretary Robert Gibbs in disguise?

 

[Roadie]

Pray tell, how was my response to you (reposted below) a "smokescreen"? You posted, I responded to the content of your post, then you decided *I* was off topic? How was YOUR post directly related to the OP? you were talking directly to ME about MY beliefs, I responded to YOUR post, and then you lamented that fact it had nothing to do with the OP. oy
Hi pot, meet kettle.

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.

 

[smoking357]

Many people vehemently disagree with you mainly because of how you say things.

This is an invalid proof:

a->b
a
C: b<->the argument was said nicely.

Everyone who wants Creationism in a public school textbook is wrong. These wrong people need to be defeated.

If I defeat them by forcing them to say silly things and making them offer silly arguments, the good side has prevailed.

We should all be happy.

 

[Roadie]

This is an invalid proof:

a->b
a
C: b<->the argument was said nicely.

Everyone who wants Creationism in a public school textbook is wrong. These wrong people need to be defeated.

If I defeat them by forcing them to say silly things and making them offer silly arguments, the good side has prevailed.

We should all be happy.

WE? WE do not all agree with you.

You just proclaimed EVERYONE, on the other side of a debate, WRONG, but, you called ME arrogant? lol

Thanks, I needed a good laugh before I go to work

 

[PatriotPride]

This is an invalid proof:

a->b
a
C: b<->the argument was said nicely.

Everyone who wants [STRIKE]Creationism[/STRIKE] Evolution in a public school textbook is wrong. These wrong people need to be defeated.

If I defeat them by forcing them to say silly things and making them offer silly arguments, the good side has prevailed.

We should all be happy.

FIFY. As far as "forcing silly arguments"...that's an interesting assertion to say the least. If the arguments are so silly, then by all means remove yourself from them. I wager many here would stand up and applaud if you would withdraw your appearance. I know I would. You sir, have strained my patience. I thank you: before this argument, I thought my tolerance for pure, unadulterated arrogance and lack of etiquette was lower than it is. See? I did learn something here, although I'm not sure it's the lesson you would have us learn.