Ind. Senators Vote for Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich_Olszewski said:
Let’s not forget that the universe is only 6,000 years old, that men coexisted with dinosaurs, and that creation took six 24 hour days - God had to rest on the seventh.👍
Click to expand...
Actually, many of us don't believe in "young earth" creation. But the idea that the creatures that we observe today, including humans, were formed through billions of individual mutations which just happened to work out and perpetuate themselves, is bizarre. There is no evidence to show that anything close to the absurd theory of macro-evolution is true. :rolleyes: Rob
 
retantion said:
This isn’t a cooperation of church and state, it’s a direct advocacy of a religious view by a state run school, the exact opposite of a separation of church and state. History has proven that theocracies don’t work.
Click to expand...
So, teaching creationism and evolution is now the definition of a theocracy?
 
retantion said:
Evolution is not a religion, it is an accepted scientific theory (maybe not by you personally but by the scientific community at large).
Click to expand...
Just as with the global warming hoax, just TRY getting a grant or a job if you are known to be an independent thinker who is puzzled that so-called "incontrovertible" theories need a wagon train full of fearful men to encircle them. :coffeeread: Rob
 
retantion said:
Atheism isn’t a religion, so no conflict with the separation of church and state.
Click to expand...
But atheism is opposed to religion and teaches morality/ethics contrary to religion therefore the State will teach things contrary to religion and so oppose religion, if one allows the State to push atheistic ideas.

Atheism leads to a worldview which occupies the niche taken by religious views.
Your worldview should not be propagated by the State or supported in any way whatsoever, if there really is separation of Church and State. The State should be totally neutral on the subject of religion or God but it’s not. The State does push secular (i.e. ethics which denies the religious views and makes itself more important than the religious view).
 
RACJ said:
Actually, many of us don’t believe in “young earth” creation. But the idea that the creatures that we observe today, including humans, were formed through billions of individual mutations which just happened to work out and perpetuate themselves, is bizarre. There is no evidence to show that anything close to the absurd theory of macro-evolution is true. :rolleyes: Rob
Click to expand...
If there is no evidence, why does every major scientific organization in the world assume the truth of the theory? Are you accusing hundreds of thousands of scientists of deliberately colluding on a lie?
 
Tenofovir said:
But atheism is opposed to religion and teaches morality/ethics contrary to religion therefore the State will teach things contrary to religion and so oppose religion, if one allows the State to push atheistic ideas.

Atheism leads to a worldview which occupies the niche taken by religious views.
Your worldview should not be propagated by the State or supported in any way whatsoever, if there really is separation of Church and State. The State should be totally neutral on the subject of religion or God but it’s not. The State does push secular (i.e. ethics which denies the religious views and makes itself more important than the religious view).
Click to expand...
They tend to side with secularists because the precedents set for what constitutes pushing religion on someone are very broad.
 
retantion said:
They tend to side with secularists because the precedents set for what constitutes pushing religion on someone are very broad.
Click to expand...
Secularism should be seen as it was originally seen - a vulgar region of society where we interacted outside of the religious (sacred) realm. Secularism should not push atheism or religious views. Somehow some people believe they can smuggle atheism in as a non-religious view and make it the de facto standard of what the State pushes on the population.
 
Tenofovir said:
Secularism should be seen as it was originally seen - a vulgar region of society where we interacted outside of the religious (sacred) realm. Secularism should not push atheism or religious views. Somehow some people believe they can smuggle atheism in as a non-religious view and make it the de facto standard of what the State pushes on the population.
Click to expand...
How is lack of religion a religious view?
 
retantion said:
How is lack of religion a religious view?
Click to expand...
It would be a negative view towards what a given religion preaches or religious adherents believe. It won’t be a totally neutral view. There are maybe some atheists who are neutral but in practice if you’re atheist you will have anti-religious views. These may be explicit or implicit. They may not even be readily apparent to you.

Religion occupies a certain scope of a person’s existential views. Purpose of life, purpose of meaning, nature of life, nature of human dignity, values, morality etc. Your atheism most definitely influences those. And then there are atheists who are secular humanists.
 
Tenofovir said:
It would be a negative view towards what a given religion preaches or religious adherents believe. It won’t be a totally neutral view. There are maybe some atheists who are neutral but in practice if you’re atheist you will have anti-religious views. These may be explicit or implicit. They may not even be readily apparent to you.

Religion occupies a certain scope of a person’s existential views. Purpose of life, purpose of meaning, nature of life, nature of human dignity, values, morality etc. Your atheism most definitely influences those. And then there are atheists who are secular humanists.
Click to expand...
Excellent point, you’re completely right. I suppose it’s difficult to strike a balance between what is acceptable with regards to religious in public these days without ticking someone off.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
This issue was decided in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Any school which attempts this will just be opening themselves up to a lawsuit.
Click to expand...
The majority of such challenges to science have been settled out of court since 2005. School districts arguing that “it’s only a theory” have been shown that as a result of the “intelligent design” trial the Dover school district lost $1.5 million that could have gone to music or sports or science or art programs. In Georgia a district that was putting warning stickers on biology textbooks decided to settle out of course with the plaintiff rather than risk losing a costly lawsuit.

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
If there is no evidence, why does every major scientific organization in the world assume the truth of the theory? Are you accusing hundreds of thousands of scientists of deliberately colluding on a lie?
Click to expand...
One needs to understand that science theories are about the material/physical earth. However, human nature presents a serious challenge since it is an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world.
 
retantion said:
Read the rest of the thread before posting an already resolved questions. Thank you.
Click to expand...
So, your answer is “no.” Okay. 🙂

You do understand that the real purpose of the 1st Amendment was to keep the government our of religion, right? You do understand that far from being out of religion, our government is constantly prodding its way into faith based choices, right?

What is worse, teaching creationism in public schools, or having the government take away religious freedoms?
 
StAnastasia said:
If there is no evidence, why does every major scientific organization in the world assume the truth of the theory? Are you accusing hundreds of thousands of scientists of deliberately colluding on a lie?
Click to expand...
One of the biggest surprises and disappointments of my life has been to find that so few people are willing to stand apart from the crowd. Sometimes there are financial reasons for this, as in the scientific realm, but most often people are simply afraid to be thought of by others as a nut. Most recently, it can be seen that there are relatively few young people who are willing to stand up for Christianity---and this in part is b/c their parents have been reluctant to investigate the gaping holes in secular, specious, godless narratives such as the story of evolution. :( Rob
 
RACJ said:
One of the biggest surprises and disappointments of my life has been to find that so few people are willing to stand apart from the crowd. Sometimes there are financial reasons for this, as in the scientific realm, but most often people are simply afraid to be thought of by others as a nut. Most recently, it can be seen that there are relatively few young people who are willing to stand up for Christianity—and this in part is b/c their parents have been reluctant to investigate the gaping holes in secular, specious, godless narratives such as the story of evolution. 😦 Rob
Click to expand...
True – few scientists are willing to stand apart from the crowd in rejecting the theory of gravity, or the theory of plate tectonics. But there are some courageous souls who do so, even despite the evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top