[_ Old Earth _] Is ID science?

[freeway]

You mean like scientist that takes a little and adds their thoughts and dreams and then try to say it's science so it has to be true.. come on thats getting old... science in its pure form is great. but science made into a religion *bleep*... if the outcome or the beginning can not be proved... its religion...

Yeah, yeah we know, evil scientists... now that is getting old.

again you miss the mark... the separation of church and state was not to keep religion out of school but to stop any state ran religion... as to the government making its own religion or backing only one.... read up... 8-) 8-) 8-)

Public schools are state ran...

read up..... 8-) 8-)

 

[jmm9683]

You mean like scientist that takes a little and adds their thoughts and dreams and then try to say it's science so it has to be true.. come on thats getting old... science in its pure form is great. but science made into a religion *bleep*... if the outcome or the beginning can not be proved... its religion...

Yeah, yeah we know, evil scientists... now that is getting old.

again you miss the mark... the separation of church and state was not to keep religion out of school but to stop any state ran religion... as to the government making its own religion or backing only one.... read up... 8-) 8-) 8-)

Public schools are state ran...

read up..... 8-) 8-)

Read what? Creationist propaganda? No thanks.

Public schools supporting creationism is the government backing a religion. No way around it.

 

[freeway]

read up....

here I'll give you the first one.. listen and disprove him... first I bet you don't listen and second I bet you can't disprove him if you do listen...

http://beta.coralridge.org/medialibrary ... diaID=3999

 

[jmm9683]

read up....

here I'll give you the first one.. listen and disprove him... first I bet you don't listen and second I bet you can't disprove him if you do listen...

http://beta.coralridge.org/medialibrary ... diaID=3999

This is the question that is asked from your link: "Does the First Amendment endorse a "wall of separation between church and state?"

Mr. Thomas Jefferson what do you have to say?:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

Now let's ask James Madison, who actually wrote the Bill of Rights:

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."

Sounds like separation of church and state was clearly their intention.

 

[freeway]

read up....

here I'll give you the first one.. listen and disprove him... first I bet you don't listen and second I bet you can't disprove him if you do listen...

http://beta.coralridge.org/medialibrary ... diaID=3999

This is the question that is asked from your link: "Does the First Amendment endorse a "wall of separation between church and state?"

Mr. Thomas Jefferson what do you have to say?:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

Now let's ask James Madison, who actually wrote the Bill of Rights:

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."

Sounds like separation of church and state was clearly their intention.

yes, no state or government shall make a religion mandatory. does not say anything about keeping religion from school... just the state can not endorse its religion... make creation and evolution and any other "religion" an elective class. unlike evolution which is taught as fact, but is not... thats all I'm saying...

 

[jmm9683]

yes, no state or government shall make a religion mandatory. does not say anything about keeping religion from school... just the state can not endorse its religion... make creation and evolution and any other "religion" an elective class. unlike evolution which is taught as fact, but is not... thats all I'm saying...

Teaching religion in public schools is the government endorsing a religion. According to the founding fathers there is a wall of separation between church and state; public schools are on the state side. The Supreme Court also agrees. What don't you understand?

 

[Barbarian]

And the obvious applies here; if some religion denies the existence of nouns, you don't change English curriculum to accommodate them. Neither should schools censor science because some people don't accept evolution.

One's personal religious beliefs do not entitle one to censor public schools.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

The problem is that most "evolutionists" don't include God in the equation as you do, which is why Christians don't like the way it is presented in schools.

And, since you do include God in the equation, why not include Him in schools, even if only as one possibility?

Because it's not science... and the whole illegal thing.

Illegal? Its only "illegal" if you have that ridiculous interpretation of the Constitution, which many liberals have. It is NOT illegal. Kids say "...one nation, under God..." everyday in school. My mom said the "Our Father" every day in public school, and I can tell you, when she was a kid, kids didnt carry guns and rape their teachers.
Teaching the possibility of "creationism" does not establish a state religion; it merely opens kids up to more ideas - that is what academic freedom is supposed to be about - the free exchange of ideas. It is not illegal. Just because the courts made some rulings, doesnt mean they made the right rulings. I'll give you a laundry list of fouled up court rulings

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...Public schools are state ran...

...which means the people pay for them, and therefore the people should have a say in what is taught, not the courts. I'm a bit tired of activists courts constantly over-turning the will of the people.

 

[Barbarian]

Illegal? Its only "illegal" if you have that ridiculous interpretation of the Constitution, which many liberals have. It is NOT illegal. Kids say "...one nation, under God..." everyday in school.

That is also illegal, but immaterial to the law. The Supreme Court has ruled that such formulaic official but pointless references to God are "de minimus" violations, and therefore trifles not to be concerned with. This was settled when someone sued to stop "in God we trust" from being placed on currency. The court sensibly decided that no one really takes those works seriously on coinage, and it is there for a case of de minimis non curat lex.

Teaching the possibility of "creationism" does not establish a state religion;

It does. And the law is more strict than that; it forbids any establishment of religion at all.

If you want to change that, you'd have to repeal the First Amendment.

 

[Barbarian]

which means the people pay for them, and therefore the people should have a say in what is taught, not the courts. I'm a bit tired of activists courts constantly over-turning the will of the people.

They do have a say; they elect school boards who make the rules. However, we are not a pure democracy; the Constitution is the ultimate source of law in our country. If enough people care enough, they could repeal the First Amendment, or change it to permit the imposition of religion in public schools.

But given the generally libertarian views of most Americans when it comes to government power, I don't think that's very likely.

 

[BobRyan]

Wernher von Braun
(Head of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center at the time of this letter)

…The scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design.

To be forced to believe only one conclusion-that everything in the universe happened by chance-would violate the very objectivity of science itself.

*On September 14, 1972, this letter addressed to a Mr. Grose and attributed to rocket scientist Wernher von Braun was read to the California State Board of Education by Dr. John Ford;


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Intelligent Design:

Academic Freedom to “follow the data where it leads†EVEN if it leads to a conclusion (such as Intelligent Design) that does not pander to the central doctrines and dogmas of atheists"

Real World Validation of ID as Science Fact.

ID theorists are just scientists that happen to be willing to admit to evidence for Intelligent Design when they find it in Nature. However this method of analysis is not limited to scientists open to “inconvenient facts†and willing to free science from today’s political bindings that demand conformance to the religious distinctives of atheism.

For example there are four fundamental forces in nature – the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetism. Some electromagnetic wave forms show that they have been purposely manipulated – their pattern shows “Intelligent Design†– (hence TV, Cell Phones, Radio) and others do not (background noise, static). We have entire industries (security, National Security Agency etc) based on the obvious and reliable fact that it is possible to evaluate electromagnetic wave forms and determine if they convey coded information – content from intelligent designers.

ID theorists are doing the same thing as they accept the fact that physics and biochemistry are the baseline medium in which Biology is expressed.

The empty claim that nothing in nature can be studied and evaluated to determine if it has an intelligent cause is disproven every day in commercial and private sector analysis of the electromagnetic wave forms alone. Admittedly the study of the instances of design found in Biology is just beginning by comparison but it is based on the same fundamental principles of analysis. While allowing this form of scientific investigation in the domain of Biology is clearly taboo to atheist religionists it is nonetheless consistent with the existing science principle of analysis already in use in many other domains of scientific investigation and discovery.

Sadly our darwinist devotees can not see the forest for the trees.

Well as they say -- you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

By contrast to that - we have the massive pile of confirmed debunked FRAUDS used to prop up the junk-science religion we call today "atheist darwinism"

I now want to thank the one atheist darwinist with text in this thread - that actually had something insightful objective and honest to say.

(Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered with this- ) "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: (saying) 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, IF you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here... "...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

Thank you Dr Patterson -- senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History -- (dead Darwin's memorial-in-museum).

You insights are honest and objective as compared to the blind orthodoxy of many of the atheist darwinist devotees posting recently.

Patterson elabarates a bit more on his summation of the problem he mentions in the quote above.

Dr. Frair quotes Colin Patterson: NY American Museum of Natural History – talk - 1981.

Colin PATTERSON:




about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

Wow - blind darwinist orthodoxy is being addressed by Patterson in an open honest and objective way. Who could have guessed that an atheist darwinist believer was capable of such honesty!


Bob

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Teaching the possibility of "creationism" does not establish a state religion;

It does. And the law is more strict than that; it forbids any establishment of religion at all.....

Teaching ideas is NOT establishing a religion. What, do you think Washington will start building Federal churches and forcing people to convert and attend them? LOL. Come on man, putting forth more than one possibility in schools is the same as establishing a state religion? Thats way over the edge.

But, as a side note: England has a state religion, The Church of England which the Queen is the head of, yet Islam seems to be flurishing there just fine. That whole fear of a state religion is just a boogyman invented to wipe out God from the public square.

 

[Barbarian]

Teaching ideas is NOT establishing a religion.

Teaching religious doctrines is establishing religion. That's settled law. No point in denying it.

What, do you think Washington will start building Federal churches and forcing people to convert and attend them? LOL.

Turns out that any establishment of religion is prohibited. If you want to learn the opinion of the founders, you might read Madison's "Against Religious Assessments."

Come on man, putting forth more than one possibility in schools is the same as establishing a state religion? Thats way over the edge.

Nice try. But even teaching the doctrine is establishment, and it's against the law. There are countries where it's not illegal. Iran, for example.

But, as a side note: England has a state religion, The Church of England which the Queen is the head of, yet Islam seems to be flurishing there just fine.

That's the irony. In nations where Christianity is established as you'd like it to be, people are turning away from it. That is what Madison wrote.

Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy.
James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments

That whole fear of a state religion is just a boogyman invented to wipe out God from the public square.

Nonsense. The same people who vigorously opposed establishment, like Madison, also thought that Christianity was essential to a civilized society. But they wanted the government completely out of it, because they knew that established religion was incompatible with Christian virtues.

I suggest you look at the officially religious nations, and report back to us, which of them are more Godly and virtuous than ours.

It might be a revelation of sorts for you.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Then tell me: If it is so bad and illegal, how did the good ol' U S of A manage to survive from 1776 until the 1960's with prayer in school, Christmas and Easter vacations, old Saint Nick in the town square at Christmas, and all the rest? How did we ever survive? Was a state religion established over those 200 years? No, it wasnt, and this disproves what you are saying.

AND: I see a direct timeline correlation from the 60's anti-religious court decisions and onward, and the sinking of our society into all manner of filth and perversity.

 

[Snidey]

Then tell me: If it is so bad and illegal, how did the good ol' U S of A manage to survive from 1776 until the 1960's with prayer in school, Christmas and Easter vacations, old Saint Nick in the town square at Christmas, and all the rest? How did we ever survive? Was a state religion established over those 200 years? No, it wasnt, and this disproves what you are saying.

AND: I see a direct timeline correlation from the 60's anti-religious court decisions and onward, and the sinking of our society into all manner of filth and perversity.

Most people would see the reverse of this. Societal changes are reflected in the courts. Only armchair social psychologists see the reverse.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Most people would see the reverse of this. Societal changes are reflected in the courts. Only armchair social psychologists see the reverse.

I disagree. In California, a great majority voted against gay marriage being legal. (We have direct votes by the people in California on "Propositions". Not all states do that.) Yet, the Courts recently imposed their liberal ideology on us against our will and made gay marriage legal. This did not reflect a change in our opinions.

If a liberal governor nominates liberal judges, they will impose liberal laws EVEN if the majority of the people are conservative.

 

[Snidey]

Most people would see the reverse of this. Societal changes are reflected in the courts. Only armchair social psychologists see the reverse.

I disagree. In California, a great majority voted against gay marriage being legal. (We have direct votes by the people in California on "Propositions". Not all states do that.) Yet, the Courts recently imposed their liberal ideology on us against our will and made gay marriage legal. This did not reflect a change in our opinions.

If a liberal governor nominates liberal judges, they will impose liberal laws EVEN if the majority of the people are conservative.

There are always going to be times when the courts move against the majority. This is frequently a precursor to the majority's opinion changing (Brown v Board), though that's probably a loose correlation. Cries of judicial activism come from both sides, and generally have miserable results like elected judges (don't get me started). Regardless, this is off topic - the issue at hand is how well the courts can actually impact social change, and the fact is that the impact is minimal. Even unpopular decisions like Brown v Board are only made when the political and social climate allows.