Your post here quite clearly shows that you did not read the original posts in this thread. Let me illustrate.
web730 said:
I don't like the idea of those schools in America prohbits to teach Creationism while they allow evolutionism. It confuses these kids big time.
Creationism as a theory, though entirely plausible, cannot be tested in a scientific way, so while it may very well be the case, it does not meet any scientific criteria, so is therefore - not science. As such, it should not be taught in a science classroom. (These are the findings of the U.S. Federal courts.) In a theology, philosphy or social studies class, I have no problem with it being presented as a fundamental concept of Christianity, either in public or parochial school classrooms - this is the appropriate forum for teaching the Judeo-Christian creation stories. The only confusion I see is when those who feel strongly about Creationism try to get others to see it as a science when it meets no scientific criteria.
web730 said:
They enforced God out of schools. It meant His protection is out of our schools as well ...
I have never been prevented from praying in school of my own choice, or talking about God, discussing God, nor even reading the Bible nor sharing it with friends at my own choosing in any public school. What is prevented is school administrators, teachers, coaches and other adults demanding that students and other faculty worship or pray in a specifc way or confess belief in a certain set of religious tenets. As an evangelical yourself, I doubt you would much want your children to be asked to pray the Rosary, nor would you care to have them asked to study the religious texts of other religions. Those of us who ascribe to religious views different from yours (though you and I are the same religion) have simply asked that our schools, courts and other public entities remain neutral to allow us (and YOU) to worship in the manner we see fit without government mandate. In original reference:
15. is not mandated by law to be taught in US public schools,
It is, and should, be taught in the science classroom because it is science and science is what should be taught in science class. As noted by the late Judge Overton in the 1980 Arkansas vs. McLean "Balanced Treament" case; "science is what s cientists do", and scientists 'do' evolution; not creationism. Never has it been legislated that evolution must, by law, be taught in the science class, is simply was because it is science.
It is wholly amusing (and somewhat aggrieving) to witness the machinations of the so-called "Scientific" creationists, who have been so enflamed in trying to achieve legislation for their battle-cry of "balanced treatment". This whole issue is so riddled with oxymorons, it's a lexicographer's delight. For instance, "scientific" creationism is promoted by only a few fundamentalist Christian types with a heavy doctrinal axe to grind and a thinly disguised, but ridiculously apparent, hidden agenda.
The Institute for Creation Research and the Center for Creation Research are self-professed ministries; and for that, they make no apologies nor have any qualms in accepting their tax-exempt status. They do no research whatsoever (that is, their so-called 'research' consists almost solely of their ransacking scientific publications for quotes from prominent evolutionary scientists which could be lifted from their original context and then perfidiously recontextualized in order to serve Creationist designs; they also spend considerable 'research' time being an 'outreach' ministry, financing expeditions to Turkey to ferret out gopher-wood ships and expend their remaining time floating horsetails in aquaria; such is their 'research ' activities), instead they content themselves with trying to 'disprove' evolution (about more later).
They require the signing of a statement of beliefs (all religious, all Biblical) in order to be counted with their little clan. Odd that this is so diametrically opposite to what real science is and what real scientists do. And yet these so-called, self-professed 'scientists' have the unmitigated temerity to call mainstream scientists closed-minded. I personally belong to 14 international geological, biological and paleontological scientific societies and have yet to be required to sign a single document confirming that I have a literal belief (or, for that matter, any beliefs) in anything.
Secondly, when one looks at the strategies of the creationists; their deceptions, shoddy work, and illogic, their 'secret' agenda becomes all too apparent. First they clamour for 'fairness' in balanced treatment; that is, they want their narrowly-sectarian, fundamentalist, Biblically-literalist religious dogma taught right alongside the science of evolution in the science classroom. Well, besides being unconstitutional; it's devious, disingenuous, and dastardly as well. If they truly wan t balanced treatment, then they would be lobbying to present all the theories of development of life on Earth.
<omitted due to length>
Just when we're going to be able to fit all of this into the science curricula and still get to any real science is, of course, a yet to be addressed question; particularly by the creationists.
Secondly, when creationists try to procure 'balanced treatment', they often try and do this be attacking evolution; an utterly fallacious endeavour (see #27: the False Dilemma [a.k.a., bifurcation fallacy]). The status quo now, in the science classroom, is that evolution is 'in' and creationism is 'out'. What the creationists so desperately desire is to overthrow that status quo and retread it to read: evolution 'in', creationism 'in'. But notice what a precedence this sets. The status of evolution remains unchanged! In both cases, it is 'in'.
Now we can see just how truly unfounded and fundamentally inane are creationist attacks on evolution. By their own admission, in striving for balanced treatment, they are not trying to oust evolution (balanced = equal for both); therefore anything that the creationists have to offer must be defending or supporting creationism, on a scientific (definitely not religious) basis; and not an attack on evolution (however specious or irrelevant), for it's not the status of evolution that they're trying to change, but rather the status of creationism.
web730 said:
Just look hard at them schools nowadays and compare them to these times before early 1960s. Drugs, guns, rude behaviors, cheatings, etc ... etc ..... that absolutley showed.
I can't say I disagree with you there, but in all honesty, the formal practice of religion has really never been permitted in American Public Schools by-and-large, so this really can't be said to be the reason for the change in the safety and effectiveness of schools. frankly, as the child of an educator, I see the fanatical pushing of personal, non-academic agendas into the school curriculum that has undermined some of the value of education.
web730 said:
Evolution still stays as a THEORY not a fact yet.
The Earth revolves around the sun. This is a fact. For centuries many Christians and formal Christian doctrines rejected this fact, but it remained a fact none-the-less. That evolution has happened is a fact - we have seen it in our o wn lifetimes - case inpoint the evolution of several viral strains including the Avian flu, Monkey Pox, SARS, AIDS, etc. It is certain modes of specific evolution that remain theory. Your non-acceptance of fact does not negate fact.
web730 said:
That they ought to leave evolution out of school as well and stick them with the science world.
Yes, why teach science at all. I'd rather we retreat to the dark ages before we knew about how germs spread disease and drank tainted water and didn't bathe. That was certainly a good time in human history.
web730 said:
ape ... ape ... half-ape/man ... man .. please for the sake!
21. does not claim that "Man came from apes",
Only misinformed types, typically with a single-edged doctrinal axe to grind, maintain this. In fact, it is about as matchless a "straw-man" argument as can be constructed. The facts of the matter are that evolutionary theories maintain that humans and the great apes share a common ancestor. Nowhere is the claim made that "man evolved from apes"; and no evolutionary theorist makes such a claim.
This is due, in my opinion, to the abysmal lack of scientific comprehension in the world today (fully 95% of Americans can be said to be scientifically illiterate (American Scientist, Sept/Oct, p. 439-444 [1])), the 'bad press' received by science in the media and the psuedoscientific pap they present under the guise of science; the generally poor reputation of science and scientists by non-scientists ("Science geeks", "math is too hard," "Why the hell should I care that the Cambrian began 560 MYA? Will that earn me $ 150K a year?" and the like), deliberate misinformation (finger pointed squarely at the so-called 'Scientific' Creationists and their thinly disguised anti- and pseudoscientific agenda, J'accuse!), and a failing of the scientific community in relating the incredible vistas, amazing worlds (past and present) and life-enriching fulfillment of our calling to those who are not scientists.
Although, in the final case there may be certain reasons for scientists not wanting to discourse with non-scientists. For his efforts in 'enlightening the masses', the late Carl Sagan of Cornell University was branded the "evolutionary god-pa pa of science", "that atheist Sagan" and "Sagan is probably a communist" by none other than good old Henry Morris of the Institute of Creation Research. Similar inanities and ad hominems are heaped upon Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Stephen Haw king, and a host of other scientists who try and keep science in the public eye. Can one scarcely blame science for refusing to cast "pearls before swine"?
