Ind. Senators Vote for Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buffalo

Guest
Ind. Senators Vote for Creationism
Code: 
		**A committee in the Indiana state legislature OKs a bill aimed at getting creationism into public school science classes.
By a margin of 8-2, the Indiana State Senate’s Education Committee passed a bill designed to insert the teaching of “creation science” alongside evolutionary theory in public school science classrooms. Senate Bill 89, which the Republican-dominated committee passed last week, would give schools the freedom to decide if they wanted to allow “the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life,” one of which is creationism.

more…

**
 
Taliban.

(being sarcastic of course)

And it won’t affect anything because you can be a Nobel prize winning scientist and still be a Creationist or learn about Creationism in school.
 
Where there is evidence of “intelligent design”, it should be taught. The genetic code, which if our dating methods are correct to the extent that is claimed, can be so stable as to produce fish which can remain unmodified for millions of years eg. Coelacanth, then I fail to see why it shouldn’t be taught as such. It didn’t get here by accident.

The earth didn’t get here by accident either, with all the fortituous circumstances for life, and in particular human life. Even our need for fossil fuels was met so it was available when we needed it for our technological revolution, along with handily fissionable uranium, stacks of aluminium and iron ore, plenty of timber (at one stage) so we had wood as well as herbage and all the rest.

There’s plenty of evidence of “intelligent design”, so why shouldn’t the evidence be presented?
 
I am for it. Otherwise remove anything non-empirical from science class and teach it in mandatory philosophy class.
 
Bob_Crowley said:
Where there is evidence of “intelligent design”, it should be taught. The genetic code, which if our dating methods are correct to the extent that is claimed, can be so stable as to produce fish which can remain unmodified for millions of years eg. Coelacanth, then I fail to see why it shouldn’t be taught as such. It didn’t get here by accident.

The earth didn’t get here by accident either, with all the fortituous circumstances for life, and in particular human life. Even our need for fossil fuels was met so it was available when we needed it for our technological revolution, along with handily fissionable uranium, stacks of aluminium and iron ore, plenty of timber (at one stage) so we had wood as well as herbage and all the rest.

There’s plenty of evidence of “intelligent design”, so why shouldn’t the evidence be presented?
Click to expand...
👍👍👍

There IS a difference between “intelligent design” and “creationism.”
Good for Indiana.

:)🙂
 
It should also be explained that even if abiogenesis (not TOE) is true and evolution is 100% true, it does not justify atheism. Why? Because TOE/abiogenesis are efficient causation. Like the laws of physics. But why there are laws of physics which give rise to life … well that’s an answer for philosophers and theologians.
 
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.
 
Hopefully this ridiculous breakdown of the separation of church and state doesn’t spread any further than Indiana.
 
buffalo said:
I advocate the cooperation of church and state.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
would give schools the freedom to decide if they wanted to allow “the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life,” one of which is creationism.
Click to expand...
Far cry from being a theocracy.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
Far cry from being a theocracy.
Click to expand...
You are correct. However, the reason we have a separation of church and state is because we learned from the mistakes of the theocracies. Allowing any form of state-sanctioned religion is just begging to open the floodgates for a full-fledged state religion.
 
retantion said:
You are correct. However, the reason we have a separation of church and state is because we learned from the mistakes of the theocracies. Allowing any form of state-sanctioned religion is just begging to open the floodgates for a full-fledged state religion.
Click to expand...
Then I guess the early Congress paying for and distributing Bibles meant we lived in a theocracy. And the Supreme Court meeting in a church. And beginning legislative sessions and affairs of state with a prayer. And most public schools using quizzing students on Bible and its precepts in addition to using it as historical and literary resource. And on and on.

Revisionist progressive history is so much fun. Evil, to be sure, but so much fun.
 
retantion said:
You are correct. However, the reason we have a separation of church and state is because we learned from the mistakes of the theocracies. Allowing any form of state-sanctioned religion is just begging to open the floodgates for a full-fledged state religion.
Click to expand...
For some reason I think it was more to be politically correct than it was for fear of theocracies. Up until 2010 there was a state whose constitution specifically mentioned a specific sect of Christianity.

I don’t think, for over 200 years with all this religion we were ever in danger of a theocracy.

I still wouldn’t mind if a group of people got together in a state and voted to have that state sponsor a specific religion/group of religions. If you don’t like it, leave. If Oklahomans decided they wanted their state to be Muslim, I’d pack by backs real quick and walk over to Texas.
 
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...
How’s this for a solution that will satisfy everyone:

Abolish government schools.

Public schools are the state religion.

A recent article I read cited a Scientific American survey that showed 90% of published scientists are atheists. It should not be surprsing that the evidence of God’s creation escapes them. It would be like sending a team of the colorblind to study a rainbow.

Thanks for posting this Buffalo. God bless.

Pax Christi
 
Nec5 said:
Then I guess the early Congress paying for and distributing Bibles meant we lived in a theocracy. And the Supreme Court meeting in a church. And beginning legislative sessions and affairs of state with a prayer. And most public schools using quizzing students on Bible and its precepts in addition to using it as historical and literary resource. And on and on.

Revisionist progressive history is so much fun. Evil, to be sure, but so much fun.
Click to expand...
Alright, it was my mistake to use the word theocracy. That’s not what I meant. I was just making a point that theocracies have no place in todays world, and government endorsement of any religion is a step in the direction of becoming a theocracy. That’s really all I meant. Now, I do believe that the first and third examples you used break the separation of church and state clause.

Now that the semantics have been hashed out, the burden of proof for creationism is on the people who believe it and want it taught in schools. If they can’t (and they can’t) bring forth any evidence for creationism, which is NOT the same thing as evidence against evolution, then creationism does not deserve to be taught in public schools.
 
retantion said:
Alright, it was my mistake to use the word theocracy. That’s not what I meant. I was just making a point that theocracies have no place in todays world, and government endorsement of any religion is a step in the direction of becoming a theocracy. That’s really all I meant. Now, I do believe that the first and third examples you used break the separation of church and state clause.

Now that the semantics have been hashed out, the burden of proof for creationism is on the people who believe it and want it taught in schools. If they can’t (and they can’t) bring forth any evidence for creationism, which is NOT the same thing as evidence against evolution, then creationism does not deserve to be taught in public schools.
Click to expand...
I’d argue that we are devolving rather than evolving.

I don’t see any reason why they can’t both be introduced though, now that you’ve conceded the fear of theocracies point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top