Creationism in schools, yes or no?

Where is my option to say, absolutely, unequivocally 100% NO?

Since you didnt provide that as an option, I will just have to say that's my answer.

 

How so, exactly?

More accurately, it prohibits the federal government from doing so. No such restriction on state governments exists in the Constitution.

I believe I have a perfectly adequate explanation: as applied to human beings, it's an irredeemably idiotic idea crafted with no greater purpose than to separate people from God.

 

It is already taught in universities.......
especially universities with some connection with various churches.

So you seem to be saying that we should adopt the Josef Stalin or Chairman Mao approach.......
and make Atheism / Agnosticism the Official Religion of the USA?

 

Sorry the state and local governments are bound by the bill of rights just like federal government. Article six of the constitution.

 

14th amendment incorporates the states. So no, not just the "federal" government, but all government.

 

So, the really hard question for science is the concept of structure. As in, what produced the spark that created mass and energy, and what created the spark of life. If spontaneous creation in nature happens, where is it? I know we discover things we previously didn't know, all the time about the natural sciences. But does our not knowing those thing overcome the burden to produce a demonstrable aspect of spontaneous creation? As in, the absence of an intelligent combination that happens by accident, or just because?

If nothing was, but was replaced by what is, what set of circumstances produced it?

 

Private schools it is. Not public ones though.


Again. Where is my option to say 100% no? That's the option I pick.


And yes. The "official" religion of GOVERNMENT should be no religion. Its not their place to pick someones god for them.

 

But.... it is the job of government to at least attempt to bring
peace..... or at least a lack of outright hostility between groups
within their nation who are having some conflict.

Latter Day Saints suffered at least some.... maybe a lot of
persecution in the USA. Catholics from Ireland were also persecuted....... does not government have some responsibility to give information to citizens.... that could have protected Mormons.... and Irish Catholics?

In our time period..... the following statement made by a near death experiencer might decrease persecution of the LGBT community.

https://www.near-death.com/experiences/notable/christian-andreason.html#a11

I personally felt a responsibility to at least apologize for being so slow to pick up on how useful that NDE account really could potentially be.


Sincere apologies for taking 5 years to understand NDE comments on Gay Community!

 

Extremely well said.......
I have got to quote that excellent assessment into this other discussion..... it fits perfectly and is worded much better than I can manage.

I thought that the gang here did quite well on the poll.........
which was actually something of an IQ test.

Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy?

 

How does the Constitution and separation come into play?

First, the Federal Government supplies funding and oversight for pubic education through the DofEd. I share your belief public education should be the exclusive concern of States, but that is not where we are now.

As it is, the Federal Government should not be developing any curriculum or standards related to religion. Period. The potential for conflict and abuse is too extreme.

 

That makes one of us.

Be that as it may, most of the BoR is irrelevant here, as is most of 1A. What is relevant here is the establishment clause, which clearly didn't apply to the states as of 12/15/1791, and no relevant changes have occurred since then.

What about it?

I don't remember saying anything about that. My concern here is about states' rights in general, not their control over education in particular.

Which suggests the Constitution doesn't matter much, despite what you said to begin with.

Swell, but I don't know what that has to do with this thread, which I understand to be about the right of states to control their curricula.

 

So you are not talking about religion, but the origins of the universe. Yeah, that's called science.

 

Perhaps you misunderstand the scientific process. Science is a process leading toward knowledge, in doing so many (most) things are not definitive and the use of "I don't know" is not only accepted, it is virtually required. There are hypothesis and theories concerning Abiogenesis and Panspermia but these are in flux due to limited data and evidence. Creation of life by an external entity has absolutely no evidence and thus cannot even become theory.

 

Science is not beholden to answer religious questions.

Science deals with nature as it is.

There is zero evidence of any "creation" event.

The Laws of Physics demonstrate that matter/energy has always existed in one form or another therefore there is no requirement for a superstitious "creation event".

As far as spontaneous formation of life science has already established that the essential building blocks of life form spontaneously and there is an excellent hypothesis that explains how those building blocks combined to form the most rudimentary life form.

Life forms like ourselves are made up of 6 of the most common elements in the universe.

 

Yes. Which, frankly was the point of my post. However, the problematic piece then, is the use of the "I don't know" theorem to undercut other potentials, as you just did. When you say, "creation of life....has not evidence". You, yourself are discounting even the possibility of external influence, are you not? And yet, you cling to the in vogue "hypothesis" that spontaneous creation did in fact happen. Seems like instead of being invested in the scientific process, you'd rather have faith in your pet fantasy. Ok, so how does that make you substantively different than the folks who have religious faith, or believe in the external intent for that creation? I don't see any difference.

 

Who said anything about a religious question? I asked why matter and energy came into existence, and how nature organized chemicals in a specific way to spark life. Why did you feel it necessary to inject the issue of religion? I didn't.

Is it because you are so unsure of, or insecure in your ability to demonstrate an actual process that you'd bully instead? Seems like it.

Do, feel free to show the actual experiment that replicates your spontaneous life assertion. So, when science in a petri dish, or other lab environment can demonstrate that spontaneous life happens, Ill be happy. To date, no such experiment exists, though, does it? Can you point to one replicated study that creates nucleic acids? Just one?

You, like others, seem particularly fond of an explanation that is entirely random. Why? A better question is, if life can be spontaneously generated, why doesn't that process always happen, in some way that we can observe?

 

The thread is about creationism in schools.

Apparently you've lost sight of that.

 

Don't feel bad most of us lose the train of a thread from time to time.

 

The concept of the "creation" of the universe is entirely a religious superstition that science is not obligated to address.

There is no evidence of any "creation event" and the onus is entirely on YOU to provide evidence of a "creation event" in order to justify your belief in an imaginary "creation".

Here is a layman's article on the Scientific Origins of Life.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

Here is the science in more detail as published in Nature;

https://www.nature.com/articles/nat...nyyDVh1xuNVA&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com

Here is another scientific study on the Origins of Life.

http://www.newsweek.com/how-life-earth-began-nucleotides-612134

Here is the science in more detail as published in Nature;

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15270

So your fallacies about these science experiments are just that, fallacies.

The science is being done and progress is being made. Whether your "creationism" confirmation bias will allow you to accept the scientific progress being made in the endeavor to determine the initial origin of life is not my problem. The science exists and it is not going to waste time on religious superstitions regarding "creation".

 

Hmm.... So the "big bang" never then happened, according to you? Interesting. Also, in the two articles that you cited, neither demonstrates the actual spontaneous generation of nucleic acids necessary to form both RNA or DNA or the autonomous replicators that would be necessary to sustain actual life. Or did you miss that part? Hmm?

The only real discussion now seems to be why you feel it necessary to swing the conversation to a discussion then of religion? Why is that? In the absence of the ability to substantiate your faith, you lash out at other competing faith? Seems as much. Oh, and so far, have I ever actually suggested that there has to be a religious answer?

 

The difference between Abiogenesis and Biblical creation is not the lack of evidence to support either but the evidence showing Biblical creation as impossibility and Abiogenesis as plausible possibility. It is abundantly clear that life and humanity are millions of years old and evolved whereas it is also very obvious that snakes do not talk and life does not come from someone playing with Mud.

 

Goodness, this clearly struck a nerve.... So, quick question. When man "creates life" in a test tube...Is that the same as intelligent design? If not, why? Similarly, you seem offended by "talking snakes", but if evolution is to believed, why not? Is it so unlikely that evolution could create reptiles with language? Isn't that the point of evolution? Or are you only interested in the static here and now, and not interested in real evolution? Just asking.

 

When mankind manages to create life in a lab (soon) that will be humans using technology to create a new organism...no magic required. I am not offended but perhaps frustrated that rational thought is not in play as in asking silly questions like could snakes talk (not with anything close to their anatomy).
As for as reptilian language it is likely they use one form of communication or another as do most creatures. Language and speech are a different matter entirely, and attempting to confuse the issue is ineffective. It may be that millions of years allow for reptilian evolution and speech, but that is not this discussion.

 

In case you've forgotten, your post that began this conversation was not.

Why the hell would I?

Pretty sure I can be forgiven for being less concerned about that than I am about your misrepresentation of the Constitution.

 

Purposefully ignoring the topic, or otherwise having the change the subject seems an unsuccessful position for you. We aren't talking about "creation of organisms, we were discussing the creation of self replicating nucleic acids that assemble into regenerative RNZ/DNA strings. I could test tube life already, what do you think test tube babies are? Cloning? Already there. Which isn't the point, is it. The point is, given gases, some basic historic soup of ingredients that the spark of life is then created. And how that happens in a random, spontaneous way. If we, man, are able to do this in the lab, then, we would also have to find examples of it in the wild, where nature itself was brewing it up, no? If not, why?

I suppose that it just never occurred to you that reptiles had literally millions of years of life on our world, did they not? Is it so unlikely that in those millions of years that language, or communications weren't also created? And, just for the sake of argument, aren't you asking a lot from what are admittedly parables in religious text to be so exactingly literal?