Ind. Senators Vote for Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Note: There has been a crucial amendment to both those points.

ncse.com/news/2012/01/indiana-creationism-bill-passes-senate-007182
The amendment mentioned is the one I was referring to. Quoting from the amendment:
The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology."
I admit, though, I was mistaken in my earlier statement that all of those religions must be taught. But the requirement is that the beliefs of multiple religions be discussed.
 
I don’t think that will be a problem. I just checked the Code, didn’t find the ten commandments in there.
Not specifically. But they are integrated into our rule of law.

Another question, how does one go about excluding truth from their laws and system of government?
 
The Indiana bill does require that the creation beliefs of multiple religions be included. At a minimum, the bill explicitly requires that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Scientology be taught.

That seems to turn the biology class into a comparative religions class.

If the goal is to make sure that a science class doesn’t undermine a student’s faith because science is agnostic, perhaps a lesson or two in the philosophy of science and the scientific method would achieve better results.
How about? - only empirical science in the science classroom (observable, repeatable, and predictable?.

Everything else goes into a mandatory philosophy class.
 
Not specifically. But they are integrated into our rule of law.

Another question, how does one go about excluding truth from their laws and system of government?
A few of the principles found in the ten commandments are also found in every set of laws, but most of the ten commandments are religous priciples not found in the law. Either way, it is certainly not necessary for the government to preach a particular religion for that government have just laws.

No one is advocating taking truth out of the laws or the government, although that is a pretty strawman.

What is your point, really? Do you want a theocracy in the US? If not, what exactly are you advocating?
 
How about? - only empirical science in the science classroom (observable, repeatable, and predictable?.

Everything else goes into a mandatory philosophy class.
Certainly scientific observation and experimentation are fundamental to the scientific method. However, one of the key goals of this is to collect those observations and make generalizations about the structure and behavior of the universe. Such scientific theories predict future observations and the confirmation of predicted observations are the test of scientific theories.
 
A few of the principles found in the ten commandments are also found in every set of laws, but most of the ten commandments are religous priciples not found in the law. Either way, it is certainly not necessary for the government to preach a particular religion for that government have just laws.

No one is advocating taking truth out of the laws or the government, although that is a pretty strawman.

What is your point, really? Do you want a theocracy in the US? If not, what exactly are you advocating?
I am advocating a Catholic America by choice not mandate. Still respected would be the Constitution that congress make no law establishing a state religion. I advocate the truths of the catholic proposition to be embraced by America’s citizens.

Why - because the Catholic proposition followed will produce the best society possible.
 
I am advocating a Catholic America by choice not mandate. Still respected would be the Constitution that congress make no law establishing a state religion. I advocate the truths of the catholic proposition to be embraced by America’s citizens.

Why - because the Catholic proposition followed will produce the best society possible.
Interesting. How do you see this being achieved?
 
Certainly scientific observation and experimentation are fundamental to the scientific method. However, one of the key goals of this is to collect those observations and make generalizations about the structure and behavior of the universe. Such scientific theories predict future observations and the confirmation of predicted observations are the test of scientific theories.
Then no one should object to ID the science in the science classroom. Under your def.ID collects data about observations of design to make generalizations about the structure and behavior of the universe, etc…

Though I do believe that your above paragraph has philosophy in it.
 
Then no one should object to ID the science in the science classroom. Under your def.ID collects data about observations of design to make generalizations about the structure and behavior of the universe, etc…
Creation science is not falsifiable : The act of creation as defined in creation science is not falsifiable because no testable bounds can be imposed on the creator. In creation science, the creator is defined as limitless, with the capacity to create (or not), through fiat alone, infinite universes, not just one, and endow each one with its own unique, unimaginable and incomparable character. It is impossible to disprove a claim when that claim as defined encompasses every conceivable contingency.”

Creation science violates the principle of parsimony : Parsimony favours those explanations which rely on the fewest assumptions. Scientists prefer explanations which are consistent with known and supported facts and evidence and require the fewest assumptions to fill remaining gaps. Many of the alternative claims made in creation science retreat from simpler scientific explanations and introduce more complications and conjecture into the equation.”

Creation science is not, and cannot be, empirically or experimentally tested: Creationism posits supernatural causes which lie outside the realm of methodological naturalism and scientific experiment. Science can only test empirical, natural claims.”

Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive: Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or “absolute truth”, the “word of God,” which is not open to change. Any evidence that runs contrary to that truth must be disregarded. In science, all claims are tentative, they are forever open to challenge, and must be discarded or adjusted when the weight of evidence demands it."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Science
 
How about? - only empirical science in the science classroom (observable, repeatable, and predictable?.

Everything else goes into a mandatory philosophy class.
Isn’t philosophy considered a secular discipline ???
 
The amendment mentioned is the one I was referring to.
.
In my humble opinion, this amendment is key.
“The governing body of a school corporationmay offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology.”

The original was
“The governing body of a school corporation may** require** the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.”

"may offer" in the amendment is significant.

Going** from “creation science” to “Christianity”** is nifty. However, I doubt if Catholic monogenism will be included since that occurred after the “origin of life” or abiogenesis.

ncse.com/news/2012/01/indiana-creationism-bill-passes-senate-007182
 
Then no one should object to ID the science in the science classroom. Under your def.ID collects data about observations of design to make generalizations about the structure and behavior of the universe, etc…

Though I do believe that your above paragraph has philosophy in it.
I may be misunderstanding the amendment…
But how does ID the science fit under multiple religions? Would that be Christianity without a personal God? My apology for my silly questions.
 
I am advocating a Catholic America by choice not mandate. Still respected would be the Constitution that congress make no law establishing a state religion. I advocate the truths of the catholic proposition to be embraced by America’s citizens.

Why - because the Catholic proposition followed will produce the best society possible.
How do you mandate that schools teach your theological beliefs while still respecting the Constitution?
 
**More support for IDvolution! 👍 God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.
**

The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control

“The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control” ** is a peer-reviewed anthology of papers that focuses**, for the first time, entirely on the following difficult scientific questions:…

Abstract: Could a composome, chemoton, or RNA vesicular protocell come to life in the absence of formal instructions, controls and regulation? Redundant, low-informational selfordering is not organization. Organization must be programmed. Intertwined circular constraints (e.g. complex hypercylces), even with negative and positive feedback, do not steer physicochemical reactions toward formal function or metabolic success. Complex hypercycles quickly and selfishly exhaust sequence and other phase spaces of potential metabolic resources.

“Chance and necessity are completely inadequate to describe the most important elements of what we repeatedly observe in intra-cellular life, especially. Science must acknowledge the reality and validity not only of a very indirect, post facto natural selection,** but of purposeful selection for potential function as a fundamental category of reality. To disallow purposeful selection renders the practice of mathematics and science impossible.**”

A new technical book, The First Gene, edited by Gene Emergence Project director David L. Abel, …" Materialists will not like this book because its arguments are 100% scientific, devoid of religious, political, or cultural concerns, and most importantly, compelling.

From reading The First Gene, a number of minimal theoretical and material requirements for life emerge:

*High levels of prescriptive information - :yup:
*Programming - :yup:
*Symbol systems and language - :yup:
*Molecules which can carry this information and programming
*Highly unlikely sequences of functional information - :yup:
*Formal function - :yup:
*An “agent” capable of making “intentional choices of mind” which can “choose” between various options, select for future function, and instantiate these requirements for life. - :yup:

Anti-ID conspiracy theorists love to say that those pesky creationists are always changing their terminology to get around the First Amendment. ID’s intellectual pedigree refutes that charge, but The First Gene adds more reasons why that charge should not be taken seriously. The book offers highly technical, strictly scientific arguments about the nature of information, information processing, and biological functionality. Even a cursory read of this book shows that its contributors are just thinking about doing good science. And this science leads them to the conclusion that blind and unguided material causes cannot produce the complexity we observe in life. Some agent capable of making choices is required to produce the first life.
 
I may be misunderstanding the amendment…
But how does ID the science fit under multiple religions? Would that be Christianity without a personal God? My apology for my silly questions.
Are we speaking of ID the science or IDvolution the philosophy?
 
How do you mandate that schools teach your theological beliefs while still respecting the Constitution?
It was done since the Constitution until the 1960’s.

Either Catholicism teaches the truth or it doesn’t. Not all beliefs carry equal weight. It is our job to determine which brings us closer to truth. I have a real problem with “sparing” our children the truth.
 
Are we speaking of ID the science or IDvolution the philosophy?
I was talking about ID science as in Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute. Your love of and devotion to Catholicism is sincerely appreciated. I wish you the very best.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top