"Separation of Church and State..."

[CountryBoy1981]

Wasn't this thread originally about the Sepration of Church & State and the Constitution. I think it would be safe to say further discussion should be directed toward the original post.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

How about Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Margaret Sanger to name a few. Do these people espouse the principles of your religion? My point is that there are individuals who do bad things that do not represent the faith itself. People are human beings and are given free will to diverge from their religious ideals. I think we can all agree that people have done horrible things under the guise of a certain religion (including atheism). The individuals are to blame, not the religion itself.

Well said sir...well said indeed...

 

[level.eleven]

Wasn't this thread originally about the Sepration of Church & State and the Constitution. I think it would be safe to say further discussion should be directed toward the original post.

Teaching "creationism" in a public school classrooms is fundamental to the separation debate. It is state sponsored, religious indoctrination.

 

[Bummer]

The individuals are to blame, not the religion itself.

Of course they are. The same goes for the small number of scientists who fake data. They are to blame, not science. That was my point.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Teaching "creationism" in a public school classrooms is fundamental to the separation debate. It is state sponsored, religious indoctrination.

By the same token, ONLY reaching evolution would necessarily be the same thing.

 

[Roadie]

Teaching "creationism" in a public school classrooms is fundamental to the separation debate. It is state sponsored, religious indoctrination.

ID, Creationism, and the Judeo/Christian Creation story are not necessarily the same thing..

 

[Bummer]

By the same token, ONLY reaching evolution would necessarily be the same thing.

Let's see, evolution has a theory that is falsifiable and makes predictions. Oh look! Science.

Creationism and Intelligent Design have no theory. No falsifiability. No predictions. Woops. Sorry. Not science.

One more time - why should religion be taught in science class?

Looks like another very good justification for Separation of Church and State. It would seem that those who wear their religion on their sleeve won't be happy until they make everybody's education as poor as their own.

 

[Roadie]

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Let's see, evolution has a theory that is falsifiable and makes predictions. Oh look! Science.

Creationism and Intelligent Design have no theory. No falsifiability. No predictions. Woops. Sorry. Not science.

One more time - why should religion be taught in science class?

Looks like another very good justification for Separation of Church and State. It would seem that those who wear their religion on their sleeve won't be happy until they make everybody's education as poor as their own.

So what you are saying is that there are scientists who have witnessed a common ancestor turn into both an ape and a human. Also scientists have witnessed a primordial soup? Good to know, did not realize they existed at that time to witness those events.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Let's see, evolution has a theory that is falsifiable and makes predictions. Oh look! Science.

Creationism and Intelligent Design have no theory. No falsifiability. No predictions. Woops. Sorry. Not science.

One more time - why should religion be taught in science class?

Looks like another very good justification for Separation of Church and State. It would seem that those who wear their religion on their sleeve won't be happy until they make everybody's education as poor as their own.

The state religion doesn't like competing ideas I see. I guess not everyone has to be tolerant....

 

[Roadie]

Let's see, evolution has a theory that is falsifiable and makes predictions. Oh look! Science.

Creationism and Intelligent Design have no theory. No falsifiability. No predictions. Woops. Sorry. Not science.

One more time - why should religion be taught in science class?

Looks like another very good justification for Separation of Church and State. It would seem that those who wear their religion on their sleeve won't be happy until they make everybody's education as poor as their own.

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

Can we please see your credentials so that we can know your qualifications for knowing what is, and what is not, science, better than the peer-reviewed scientists/authors at the link above?

Thanks

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

Hmmmm...and to think I was told that the ID issue wasn't real, and the scientific community had rejected this outright....

Good find Roadie!

+1

 

[Roadie]

Hmmmm...and to think I was told that the ID issue wasn't real, and the scientific community had rejected this outright....

Good find Roadie!

+1

Thanks, but according to Bummer, it's not science... I am sure his qualifications exceed those of the authors and scientists that support ID..

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Thanks, but according to Bummer, it's not science... I am sure his qualifications exceed those of the authors and scientists that support ID..

I hear crickets churping....

 

[Bummer]

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

The Discovery Institute? Really? Though they've been asked repeatedly they have yet to offer up their Theory of Intelligent Design. They were even told to come across by a judge. Guess what? No theory.

Did you know that David Abel, author of 12 of the Discovery Institute's "studies" you've quoted does all his work out of his own home? No experiments, no observations, no measurements, just Abel's assertions. No wonder he doesn't need any actual labs. Since he has no qualifications whatsoever mine are at least as good as his.

Now where was that theory again? You don't need to talk snotty BS, just point to the actual theory.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

The Discovery Institute? Really? Though they've been asked repeatedly they have yet to offer up their Theory of Intelligent Design. They were even told to come across by a judge. Guess what? No theory.

Did you know that David Abel, author of 12 of the Discovery Institute's "studies" you've quoted does all his work out of his own home? No experiments, no observations, no measurements, just Abel's assertions. No wonder he doesn't need any actual labs. Since he has no qualifications whatsoever mine are at least as good as his.

Now where was that theory again? You don't need to talk snotty BS, just point to the actual theory.

Source?

 

[CountryBoy1981]

The Discovery Institute? Really? Though they've been asked repeatedly they have yet to offer up their Theory of Intelligent Design. They were even told to come across by a judge. Guess what? No theory.

Did you know that David Abel, author of 12 of the Discovery Institute's "studies" you've quoted does all his work out of his own home? No experiments, no observations, no measurements, just Abel's assertions. No wonder he doesn't need any actual labs. Since he has no qualifications whatsoever mine are at least as good as his.

Now where was that theory again? You don't need to talk snotty BS, just point to the actual theory.

Also, can you please tell me how they have tested that apes and humans came from common ancestors in a lab?

 

[bigg cheese]

I don't think you're implying court decisions are right only if they agree with you, but your statement could be interpreted as such. There are those on the left who would present the same argument form the opposite perspective.

Thing is, on an issue as clear as this, I think we need a visit from Captain Obvious. There are things that can be debated because they're vague. This isn't one of them. The idea of separation of church and state was never purported to be more than a one-way street -- not both. The state stays out of the religion business, but religion can and will influence the state. Where one gets their morality cannot be extricated from the man, and especially in the era in which that letter was written, it would have been impossible. (more than today)

 

[Roadie]

The Discovery Institute? Really? Though they've been asked repeatedly they have yet to offer up their Theory of Intelligent Design. They were even told to come across by a judge. Guess what? No theory.

Did you know that David Abel, author of 12 of the Discovery Institute's "studies" you've quoted does all his work out of his own home? No experiments, no observations, no measurements, just Abel's assertions. No wonder he doesn't need any actual labs. Since he has no qualifications whatsoever mine are at least as good as his.

Now where was that theory again? You don't need to talk snotty BS, just point to the actual theory.

So, great, you discounted ONE author, so that invalidates ALL of the others? You didn't look at any of the other papers referenced on the link, because you disagree with the site the links are posted on, did you? How very open minded of you..

"A" theory? As in just one? There is more than one theory relating to evolution, several of which are in conflict with each other, yet you demand ONE unified theory of ID? Rather hypocritical, don't you think?

By your logic once any ONE theory relating to evolution, or any one author, scientist, etc, is discredited, then ALL are suspect. Right? I mean, if you put ID into those constraints, how can you honestly, and intellectually, not hold evolution to the same conditions?

 

[rdneff]

I am an agnostic and religion plays no role in my life.

This does not prevent me from being able to read plain English.

The government can't create a state religion. They can't make me adhere to any particular religion. They can't tell me that I CAN'T adhere to any particular religion. They can't penalize me for having NO religion.

If a city hall somewhere puts a Nativity Scene on the lawn, no LAW has been passed respecting an establishment of religion. A law either requires action or prohibits it. The presence of a Nativity scene does neither. It doesn't harm me, nor does it offend me. It has no effect upon my quality of life. It in no way interferes with my civil rights.

If some judge chooses to put a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom the situation is the same: no LAW has been passed respecting an establishment of religion. It's no skin off my nose.

What's so damned complicated about this?

I agree with the content here. We allow these non-issues that have no effect on our day to day lives to consume us. At the end of the day they really don't matter.