Ind. Senators Vote for Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan_Daly said:
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
Click to expand...
Does it occur to you that there might be a good reason for that:rolleyes:
 
RACJ said:
Atheist, don’t you have anything more serious to worry about than a church takeover (LOL) of the state? If ID is as silly as you seem to think, it should be easily disproved in class, and then the next generation won’t waste any time talking about such nonsense. Right?
Of course, what you folks really fear is that the cornerstone of your Tower of Babel will be smashed. You are opposed to a free and open debate because it’s YOUR side that doesn’t have a shred of logic. Cordially, Rob 😃
Click to expand...
Not if the teacher is actively promoting it.
 
buffalo said:
There is nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state. What it says is that there should be no law imposing a state religion on its people. This acts as a one way valve. Government can and should be informed by religion.

So you would advocate removing the **religion of evolution **from the science classroom?
Click to expand...
How is evolution a religion?
I think your projecting.
 
Tenofovir said:
Evolution has philosophical implications which should not be supported by the state. These implications are used in a religious or existential way.

Secondly, secular humanism is something which the state often pushes and that is a religion.

The State does smuggle in religion through these two concepts. They do teach ethics, teachers do make religious judgements - all of that should be forbidden if there is GENUINE separation of church and state.
Click to expand...
Religion is not the same as ethics.
And all your other claims are equally unsupported by evidence.
 
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...
Is it any more bizarre than the theory that an all-powerful deity sacrificed himself to appease himself, and since he’s all-knowing it was part of his master plan all long?
 
RACJ said:
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
Click to expand...
By independent thinker, do you mean a loud mouth who can’t keep his conspiracy theories to himself (including when he’s on the job and perhaps even during a job interview)?
 
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...
So not believing in religion is the same as religion?
By simply not accepting any religious claims I joined some sort of shadowy anti-religion organization?:rolleyes:
 
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...
ITS A CONSPIRACY!:eek:

😉
 
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...
In other words those who grow the food, birth the children, protect us from aggressors, raise the children, plan for disasters, and all the other basic necessities of life and running a society are vastly inferior (in function if not nature) to the people whose function is to interpret the will of the gods (thereby raising their own status far above the masses).
 
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...
Your argument is fundamentally flawed.
According to your* logic *if someone doesn’t believe in a religion their inherently hostile towards it (even if the person in question is completely ignorant of that religion).
 
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...
And in past generations they were unwilling to stand up to Christian authorities.
What of it?
 
Dale_M said:
The Indiana Department of Education has said that, if the bill becomes law, it does not plan on establishing standards for the teaching of creationism. An interesting take on this bill is that the teaching of creationism has always been allowed in Indiana schools and at least one high school biology class already does so. The bill may be intended to provide legal cover so that the state of Indiana would help defray the cost of a court challenge rather than putting the burden solely on the school district.
Click to expand...
Dale_M, what’s amazing is that Indianans are not deterred by Dover history, by the very real possibility that any school district that brings a lawsuit, or has one brought to it by angry parents, stands to lose a million dollars in school funding.
 
RACJ said:
You could have courage, and also be a fool. Those who doubt climatic chaos thanks to a slight increase of a trace gas, and those who are left wanting for a serious explanation of how an amoeba turned into a giraffe have little in common with your garden variety buffoon. :rolleyes: Rob
Click to expand...
Well that we certainly agree on.
 
StAnastasia said:
Dale_M, what’s amazing is that Indianans are not deterred by Dover history, by the very real possibility that any school district that brings a lawsuit, or has one brought to it by angry parents, stands to lose a million dollars in school funding.
Click to expand...
That consideration should not be part of the pursuit of truth.
 
grannymh said:
With all the emphasis on creationism, and design-ID, neither of which affirms the Catholic doctrine of two parents of humanity, who is able to defend the subsequent Catholic doctrines on human nature, original sin, and why the need for redemption by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity? silence?
Click to expand...
Why should the topic even be mentioned in **science **classrooms?
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
ITS A CONSPIRACY!:eek:

😉
Click to expand...
AngryAtheist8, that’s a possibility. But why would thousands of Catholic scientists like Fr., George Coyne, Fr. Bill Stoeger, Dr. Ken Miller, and Evangelical scientists like Dr. Francis Collins, collude in such a conspiracy?
 
RACJ said:
This is stated very forcefully, but there’s not a shred of logic behind what you say. Consensus, especially politically-driven consensus, is not science. Evolutionary theory is speculation, wild unscientific speculation.
Please tell me, step by step, how the human ear evolved. OK, I’ll settle for a plausible outline. :confused: Rob
Click to expand...
Where is the logic behind your claims?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top