[_ Old Earth _] Louisiana Unanimously Passes Academic Freedom Bill

[jmm9683]

And to go back to something else:

jmm9683 stated: How many of the thousands of modern scientists that you can list are young earth creationists? My guess: very few.

Nope. many.

Actually only 5% of US adults that hold professional degrees in science are YEC. Kinda puts that idea to bed.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

 

[John]

The path is narrow :wink:

 

[jmm9683]

The path is narrow :wink:

Well seeing as you claimed different earlier, I guess that's your only option.

 

[John]

Please help stop the Discovery Institute from boldly introducing religion into public education.

SB 733, the LA Science Education Act, has passed both houses of the legislature, and the governor has indicated that he intends to sign it. But we don't have to be quiet about this. There is something that you and everyone else you know who wants to help can do:

The LA Coalition for Science has posted a press release and an open letter to Jindal asking him to veto the bill. http://lasciencecoalition.org. The contact information is at the LCFS website.

We want people all over the country to do this, as many as possible, since Louisiana will be only the beginning. YOUR State could be next. Here are the talking points:

Point 1: The Louisiana law, SB 733, the LA Science Education Act, has national implications. So far, this legislation has failed in every other state where it was proposed, except in Michigan, where it remains in committee. By passing SB 733, Louisiana has set a dangerous precedent that will benefit the Discovery Institute by helping them to advance their strategy to get intelligent design creationism into public schools. Louisiana is only the beginning. Other states will now be encouraged to pass such legislation, and the Discovery Institute has already said that they will continue their push to get such legislation passed.

Point 2: Since Gov. Jindal's support for teaching ID clearly helped to get this bill passed in the first place, his decision to veto it will stick if he lets the legislature know that he wants it to stick.

Point 3: Simply allowing the bill to become law without his signature, which is one of the governor's options, does not absolve him of the responsibility for protecting the public school science classes of Louisiana. He must veto the bill to show that he is serious about improving Louisiana by improving education. Anything less than a veto means that the governor is giving a green light to creationists to undermine the education of Louisiana children.

You can pull additional talking points from the LCFS press release and our online letter if you want them.

Now we have to get the message out to people. People can contact the governor and and also contact their friends, asking them to do the same. We need to create a huge network of e-mails asking people to do this. Where they live does not matter at this point. What is happening in Louisiana has implications for everyone in the nation. The Discovery Institute does not intend to stop with the Pelican State.

Thank you,

Barbara

LMBO man they are desperate, you know if evolution was so solid ,they would not have to worry about the other side of the coin, because there would be no "other side" : : : :

 

[jmm9683]

LMBO man they are desperate, you know if evolution was so solid ,they would not have to worry about the other side of the coin, because there would be no "other side" : : : :

Desperate? Hahaha, when are the ironic quotes gonna end? The creationists are the ones that are desperate, first creationism was shut down by the Supreme Court. Then they tried to repackage it as Intelligent Design, and it got shut down in Dover. Now they are trying to get a back door way in here. If they start to introduce creationist/ID ideas into the classroom, they will be shut down again.

 

[Barbarian]

Creationists have long given up trying to persuade people to accept their religion. They are now trying to find a way to force them to accept it.

This one will get the same end as all the others.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

But why? If you trust in God's word everyone Christian should be a YEC.

I trust God's word. But literallistic interpretations of it can often lead on to error. For example, Mark 16:18 says "...they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all...". Now I trust Gods word, but would you actually do that? Hebrews did not write history the way we do. We seek precise facts and figures - the ancient Hebrews did not. To me, YEC goes against honest science. But I respect your beliefs.

But back to the point, creationism should be taught along side evolutionism: Since when do we fear the free exchange of ideas in our academic settings?

 

[jmm9683]

But why? If you trust in God's word everyone Christian should be a YEC.

I trust God's word. But literallistic interpretations of it can often lead on to error. For example, Mark 16:18 says "...they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all...". Now I trust Gods word, but would you actually do that? Hebrews did not write history the way we do. We seek precise facts and figures - the ancient Hebrews did not. To me, YEC goes against honest science. But I respect your beliefs.

But back to the point, creationism should be taught along side evolutionism: Since when do we fear the free exchange of ideas in our academic settings?

Because creationism isn't a scientific theory. Talk about it all you want in a theological class, but it belongs nowhere near a science classroom.

 

[John]

Why should other theories about origins not be discussed In the classroom? I've never heard a satisfactory answer.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

But why? If you trust in God's word everyone Christian should be a YEC.

I trust God's word. But literallistic interpretations of it can often lead on to error. For example, Mark 16:18 says "...they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all...". Now I trust Gods word, but would you actually do that? Hebrews did not write history the way we do. We seek precise facts and figures - the ancient Hebrews did not. To me, YEC goes against honest science. But I respect your beliefs.

But back to the point, creationism should be taught along side evolutionism: Since when do we fear the free exchange of ideas in our academic settings?

Because creationism isn't a scientific theory. Talk about it all you want in a theological class, but it belongs nowhere near a science classroom.

The question is, is creationism TRUE? Science cannot answer that question. However, mathematics CAN eliminate other possibilities, and evolution out of nothing is a statistcal impossibility. Thats a mathematical FACT. The idea that there is no God is in fact mathematically impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds. The idea is a "Statistcal Immposibility". For example, it is theoretically possible that you could blow up a junk yard and all the flying pieces would land and form themselves into a Cadillac - that is possible. But the odds against it are so high that it constitutes a "Statistcal Immposibility". Same goes for evolution. That only leaves one possibility: God. There's your proof, mathematically arrived at.

We should be more concered about what is TRUE, and NOT whether it fits nicely into your scientific catagory.

 

[jmm9683]

Why should other theories about origins not be discussed In the classroom? I've never heard a satisfactory answer.

Do you want other religions' origins stories taught in science classrooms too? The thing is it's not a theory, it's a story. It has no scientific backing. If one "theory" is taught, then let's introduce Xenu into the classroom also, we have to allow for all theories to be discussed. And what about Brahma, after all he is the creator according to the Vedas.

 

[jmm9683]

The question is, is creationism TRUE? Science cannot answer that question. However, mathematics CAN eliminate other possibilities, and evolution out of nothing is a statistcal impossibility. Thats a mathematical FACT. The idea that there is no God is in fact mathematically impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds. The idea is a "Statistcal Immposibility". For example, it is theoretically possible that you could blow up a junk yard and all the flying pieces would land and form themselves into a Cadillac - that is possible. But the odds against it are so high that it constitutes a "Statistcal Immposibility". Same goes for evolution. That only leaves one possibility: God. There's your proof, mathematically arrived at.

We should be more concered about what is TRUE, and NOT whether it fits nicely into your scientific catagory.

Too bad the Catholic Church doesn't even agree with you.

 

[John]

No, its ID, it applies to many other religions, they ALL talk about a God (or gods) creating everything. ID it can apply to any "creator"

 

[jmm9683]

No, its ID, it applies to many other religions, they ALL talk about a God (or gods) creating everything. ID it can apply to any "creator"

Well too bad they don't have a scientific theory... so again it's not science.

 

[John]

No, its ID, it applies to many other religions, they ALL talk about a God (or gods) creating everything. ID it can apply to any "creator"

Well too bad they don't have a scientific theory... so again it's not science.

A classic example of how you are worn.. Walt Brown.

 

[jmm9683]

No, its ID, it applies to many other religions, they ALL talk about a God (or gods) creating everything. ID it can apply to any "creator"

Well too bad they don't have a scientific theory... so again it's not science.

A classic example of how you are worn.. Walt Brown.

Yeah the dude with an engineering degree can prove all of modern geology and biology wrong hahaha good one.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Too bad the Catholic Church doesn't even agree with you.

You just stepped off the deep end my friend. What I said is PERFECTLY in line with Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church has not infallibly defined Genesis, so a faithful Catholic can be a YEC or a partial evolutionist and still be within the bounds of orthodoxy. Its just that finding a Catholic YEC is extremely rare.

However, the Church teaches:

CCC 290: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth": three things are affirmed in these first words of Scripture: the eternal God gave a beginning to all that exists outside of himself; he alone is Creator (the verb "create" - Hebrew bara - always has God for its subject). The totality of what exists (expressed by the formula "the heavens and the earth") depends on the One who gives it being.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm#I

As I said before, certain elements of evelotionism are acceptable. What is NOT acceptable is EVOLUTION OUT OF NOTHING. It is Catholic Dogma that God created the heavens and the earth, all that exists, out of nothing. Now, what happened after THAT is fair game. But there is no doubt that God created all that exists out of nothing. That is the truth of our existance.

 

[jmm9683]

Too bad the Catholic Church doesn't even agree with you.

You just stepped off the deep end my friend. What I said is PERFECTLY in line with Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church has not infallibly defined Genesis, so a faithful Catholic can be a YEC or a partial evolutionist and still be within the bounds of orthodoxy. Its just that finding a Catholic YEC is extremely rare.

However, the Church teaches:

CCC 290: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth": three things are affirmed in these first words of Scripture: the eternal God gave a beginning to all that exists outside of himself; he alone is Creator (the verb "create" - Hebrew bara - always has God for its subject). The totality of what exists (expressed by the formula "the heavens and the earth") depends on the One who gives it being.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm#I

As I said before, certain elements of evelotionism are acceptable. What is NOT acceptable is EVOLUTION OUT OF NOTHING. It is Catholic Dogma that God created the heavens and the earth - all that exists - out of nothing. What happened after THAT is fair game.

The Catholic Church accepts evolution. Catholic schools teach evolution, not theistic evolution in their science classes. They obviously do teach that God created life in religious classes, however.

And what do you mean by evolution out of nothing is? Are you talking about the origin of life? Because that's not what evolution is. Whether it was goddidit, abiogenesis, etc. it doesn't matter for evolutionary biology. All that matters is that life started at some point.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Catholic Church accepts evolution

Not officialy, and not EVOLUTION OUT OF NOTHING. I'd suggest you actually read official Church documents from the Vatican instead of paroting what the leftist news media tells you.

...And what do you mean by evolution out of nothing is? Are you talking about the origin of life? Because that's not what evolution is. Whether it was goddidit, abiogenesis, etc. it doesn't matter for evolutionary biology. All that matters is that life started at some point.

And what you fail to realize is that most schools don't present it as you just did. When they say EVOLUTION, they mean EVOLUTION OUT OF NOTHING - in other words, NO GOD. Catholic schools do NOT teach that. And besides, they teach other classes that would balance that notion out. Public schools do not.

But let me ask you this: Since it is such an important question, should public schools teach a class on the orgins of the Universe, in a seperate class? After all, it IS the BIG QUESTION: Why not let schools grapple with it?

 

[jmm9683]

Catholic Church accepts evolution

Not officialy, and not EVOLUTION OUT OF NOTHING. I'd suggest you actually read official Church documents from the Vatican instead of paroting what the leftist news media tells you.

The Church believes that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict. Obviously they believe life started with God.

And what you fail to realize is that most schools don't present it as you just did. When they say EVOLUTION, they mean EVOLUTION OUT OF NOTHING - in other words, NO GOD. Catholic schools do NOT teach that. And besides, they teach other classes that would balance that notion out. Public schools do not.

Once again, evolution does not speak to the origin of life, it's a different issue altogether. However, saying goddidit is a cop out in a scientific setting. People have been saying that all throughout history for every type of phenomenon.

But let me ask you this: Since it is such an important question, should public schools teach a class on the orgins of the Universe, in a seperate class? After all, it IS the BIG QUESTION: Why not let schools grapple with it?

You really are all over the place here: evolution, origin of life, origin of the universe. They are all separate. Why would a public high school have a whole class for the origin of the universe? Isn't that a little specialized for high school, that's more of a college level class. The origin of the universe would be covered in a basic astronomy class in high school. And seeing as the Big Bang is the accepted scientific theory for the origin of the universe, it's what is taught and that's how it should be.