"Separation of Church and State..."

[IndyDave1776]

So where did this come from? Is it in the Constitution? What does it mean? When did it become law? If it was passed in 1947 by the Supreme Court, then what took it so long? Why did two different Supreme Courts in prior years strike it down? If "Seperation of Church an State" came from Jefferson, what was his interpetation, an did the 1947 Supreme Court agree with him? Did the Courts get this right?

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Separation of Church and State

The critical element is that this was a court packed by Franklin Roosevelt. Turning back a few years to the aberrant Wickard v. Filburn decision which opened the door to federalizing most everything, the decision was made on an 8 to 1 vote with the 8 in the majority being FDR appointees. The same disregard for the Constitution would continue to be a hallmark of this court, as demonstrated with this contrived 'freedom from religion'.

 

[level.eleven]

Source?

More bad science in the literature | Pharyngula

Peer review doesn't involve handing your work to your in-house buddy to read. In the case of Abel, in-house takes on a literal meaning.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

More bad science in the literature | Pharyngula

Peer review doesn't involve handing your work to your in-house buddy to read. In the case of Abel, in-house takes on a literal meaning.

I'm lost, nowhere in that article did I see that the author had actually been inside this man's home. All I can tell from that article is the author's opinion. If that article was in a newspaper, it would have to have been in the opinion section.

 

[level.eleven]

I'm lost, nowhere in that article did I see that the author had actually been inside this man's home. All I can tell from that article is the author's opinion. If that article was in a newspaper, it would have to have been in the opinion section.

Okay. I will walk you through this incredibly complex topic.

1) A list was posted of "peer reviewed" articles on the Discovery Institutes website.

2) 17% of those articles were attributed to a man named Abel.

3) Abel is employed by the Department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics, Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc., 113-120 Hedgewood Drive, Greenbelt, MD 20770 - per his articles.

4) That address is his house.

Are implying that he can run a reputable research institution our of his garage?

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Using the logic of many evolutionary scientists, tornado's can construct houses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=259r-iDckjQ&feature=player_embedded

Great video on an article that was accepted in a peer review journal, then later removed, not because it wasn't factually sufficient, but because it did not meet what the journal wanted to publish.

 

[level.eleven]

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?

Alright. So lets throw out Abel's articles. Next, William Lane Craig. He is not a scientist. He is a creationist with a degree in philosophy. Next, lets turn to John A. Davison. Fired from his university teaching position after a mental breakdown affected his work, he now writes from home and trolls scientific message boards. I am not kidding. He once posted 600+ times on a site, arguing with another account that he had set up. Insanity. He was even banned from Dembski's site, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. Now, lets turn our attention to all of the articles that appear in Bio-Complexity. Did you know that Bio-Complexity is the Discovery Institute's in house journal? Handing your work to your buddy sitting next to you at the Discovery Insitute is not peer review. We won't even get into Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature...

That list is academically dishonest. More misinformation for the ignorant.

 

[jamil]

If you want to debate creationism vs evolution, how about creating a separate thread? Oh, wait. religious debates aren't allowed on INGO.

 

[Garb]

Second, science is not faith based. Science, adjusts it's position based on what is observed. Faith, is the denial of observation so that positions can be preserved. Enter, the scientific method. Are you arguing that a water molecule consisting of two hydrogen atoms and a single oxygen atom is reliant upon faith, rather than observation, to be believed?

Blind faith is the denial of observation, which is different than faith. I have faith that my wife is not cheating on me. If I observe her doing things that are common of cheating spouses, and still believe she isn't cheating on me, that is blind faith. Faith is believing without seeing, not in spite of it. Also, your water molecule analogy is a pretty poor one. Both faith and observation have no bearing on what objective truth is, which in this case, is that water molecules are made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. You could make a faulty observation, and think that it's made up of only one hydrogen atom and one oxygen atom. Or you could have faith that it's made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom because that's what the professionals say.

 

[level.eleven]

Blind faith is the denial of observation, which is different than faith. I have faith that my wife is not cheating on me. If I observe her doing things that are common of cheating spouses, and still believe she isn't cheating on me, that is blind faith. Faith is believing without seeing, not in spite of it. Also, your water molecule analogy is a pretty poor one. Both faith and observation have no bearing on what objective truth is, which in this case, is that water molecules are made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. You could make a faulty observation, and think that it's made up of only one hydrogen atom and one oxygen atom. Or you could have faith that it's made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom because that's what the professionals say.

What you described with your wife is not faith. It is theory. Your hypothesis is - My wife is cheating on me. (I am avoiding a negative hypothesis here, but for this example I could let it rephrase). You conduct research via observation. I don't smell any male cologne, there aren't any rubbers in the trash, she isn't sneaking out, etc... Conclusion: hypothesis rejected. Repeatable and falsifiable.

Both faith and observation have no bearing on what objective truth is, which in this case, is that water molecules are made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

Is this some type of Eastern religion, Depak Chopra position? You lost me. Are you telling me that this apple that I hold in my hand is just my opinion on the position that an apple is in my hand?

 

[rambone]

Why must public schools teach ANY theories about the origins of life?

Teach them to write a coherent sentence and to comprehend basic math.

Let students contemplate unprovable theories somewhere else.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Why must public schools teach ANY theories about the origins of life?

Teach them to write a coherent sentence and to comprehend basic math.

Let students contemplate unprovable theories somewhere else.

I approve this message. Teach them all or teach none.

 

[mrjarrell]

Why must public schools teach ANY theories about the origins of life?

Teach them to write a coherent sentence and to comprehend basic math.

Let students contemplate unprovable theories somewhere else.

It's part and parcel of the basic scientific curriculum. America's kids need a firm grounding in science. If their parents wish them to be grounded in religion and the myths surrounding it, then homeschool them or send them to the nearest religious indoctrination center that appeals to them. Science is important and, as long as government schools exist, the kids attending should be taught science. When the creationist/ID nonsense rises to the level of science and meets the basic criteria to be recognised as scientifically valid, then it can be taught. Otherwise leave it where it belongs, in the home or the church.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

It's part and parcel of the basic scientific curriculum. America's kids need a firm grounding in science. If their parents wish them to be grounded in religion and the myths surrounding it, then homeschool them or send them to the nearest religious indoctrination center that appeals to them. Science is important and, as long as government schools exist, the kids attending should be taught science. When the creationist/ID nonsense rises to the level of science and meets the basic criteria to be recognised as scientifically valid, then it can be taught. Otherwise leave it where it belongs, in the home or the church.

But it isn't science, that's the problem. The people who believe in freedom from religion are the ones who force their religious beliefs upon others.

Students are barely graduating but it should be mandatory that they learn about evolution? If you want to indoctrinate students, do it in college, that is where it happens anyways.

 

[thebishopp]

Why must public schools teach ANY theories about the origins of life?

Teach them to write a coherent sentence and to comprehend basic math.

Let students contemplate unprovable theories somewhere else.

I agree with this as well.

 

[mrjarrell]

But it isn't science, that's the problem. The people who believe in freedom from religion are the ones who force their religious beliefs upon others.

Students are barely graduating but it should be mandatory that they learn about evolution? If you want to indoctrinate students, do it in college, that is where it happens anyways.

Evolution is part of the biological sciences. Your religious beliefs are not. Frankly, from what I've seen so far in this thread, there are many who don't have the foggiest clue as to what science is. It's worse than talking to toddlers. Evolution is science, whether you like it or not. If you don't want your kids to have a scientific education then do it yourself or send them to your own religious indoctrination center. Leave the smart kids alone so they can at least get an education.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Evolution is part of the biological sciences. Your religious beliefs are not. Frankly, from what I've seen so far in this thread, there are many who don't have the foggiest clue as to what science is. It's worse than talking to toddlers. Evolution is science, whether you like it or not. If you don't want your kids to have a scientific education then do it yourself or send them to your own religious indoctrination center. Leave the smart kids alone so they can at least get an education.

The funniest part is that you don't realize that some people who have an opposing view to you have studied upper level science in college. We just do not believe into what we are preached. Just because you believe (faith) it is does not mean it is.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

By the way, Global Warming is part of sciences too. Just because we do not believe in what "science" tells us does not mean that we have religious objections. We just do not believe (faith) in questionable science.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Why must public schools teach ANY theories about the origins of life?

Teach them to write a coherent sentence and to comprehend basic math.

Let students contemplate unprovable theories somewhere else.

C'mon Rambone....this is unlike you, this is akin to "why don't we just teach the kids skills they need to work for the state?"

Why don't we teach kids to THINK, present both sides of issues and trust them to decide for themselves?

 

[EvilBlackGun]

And this:

What you described with your wife is not faith. It is theory. Your hypothesis is - My wife is cheating on me. (I am avoiding a negative hypothesis here, but for this example I could let it rephrase). You conduct research via observation. I don't smell any male cologne, there aren't any rubbers in the trash, she isn't sneaking out, etc... Conclusion: hypothesis rejected. Repeatable and falsifiable. <snip> Are you telling me that this apple that I hold in my hand is just my opinion on the position that an apple is in my hand?

No; that would be Mary Baker Something-something. "If you think hard enough about anything, it happens." Now then, I suppose one loves his own wife. She assures him that she does not cheat. Nature takes its course, and unfortunately one day she passes away. A while later the septic system begins to gurgle and run slow, so you have it dug up for fixing. In it you find 250± condoms. You have never used condoms. Do you still love your wife? Where was your faith? Where is your faith now, in view of the evidence? Faith can hardly change facts, while facts may confirm or deny faith. Faith has substance, tho' it is still intangible evidence of things unseen. Whether you do or don't have faith is not a problem ... ... until you want folks like me to be taxed to pay for your faith or your sex habits and consequences. [Carmel--Corn:] Why don't we teach kids to THINK, present both sides of issues and trust them to decide for themselves?] WHICH "both sides?" There may be 1000 sides to some issues. But I agree: teach them HOW to think, not WHAT to think. Et c. EBG

 

[IndyDave1776]

Where the schools are concerned, while they necessarily will be a product of the prevailing culture, there is no need for unproven junk science to be taught simply because it opposes religion. We have been sold a false premise in that if the state cannot sponsor religion it necessarily must seek to discredit it, the sheer indefensibly of Darwinism (which seems to have become a religion itself) and Global Warming (again, either a religion or a part of the atheistic pantheon of religion). I support the teaching of both of these in public schools as soon as they are definitively proven, which will be never.

As for the perennial misquote of Jefferson, his famous words were directed to pastors assuring them that they need not fear the government invading the management of their churches. Nothing more and nothing less. The Supreme Court twisting of this stands in evidence of the danger of leftists and also of one person holding sway too long, as demonstrated by Franklin Roosevelt disregarding the tradition that stood since Washington that a president should serve at most two terms. Among other problems is that more than that allows an unacceptable level of packing the courts.