posted
Waitaminnit. NM REMOVED The idiotic "Give Creationism Equal Time" clause! THAT'S what the article says!
Reason defeats Superstition!
JOY!!!
Seriously. Giving equal time to creationism is like having a sex-ed class in which you must give equal time to the theory that the STORK delivers babies.
------------------ "We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited October 10, 1999).]
posted
About Damn time.... leave creationism in the church where it belongs.
------------------ "...when all that is driving my heart forward is you, thoughts of you, hopes for you, and a fading dream with a Mona Lisa smile that whispers "are you thinking of me too?"
posted
Still, even in that article it says that evolution is the idea that we are decended from apes. Jeez, Darwin was sick of having to dield that one. 'We have a common ancestor' he'd say. 'So you're saying that we were all monkeys originally?' they'd say. 'No, but we were once an ape-like species, some of which evolved into modern apes, some of which evolved into humans' he'd say. 'So, we used to eat bananas and scratfh our armpits then?' they'd say. 'ARGGGHHHH' he'd say.
------------------ Cordellia: "Well, does looking at guns make you wanna have sex?" Xander: "I'm seventeen. Looking at linoleum makes me wanna have sex."
posted
*Opens his mouth and is about to say something*
*Changes his mind and follows LOA's example*
*sigh*
*Changes his mind again when he sees the senseless sentance in 1of2's post*
Look, 1of2, no offence here, but that sentance about sexEd and the stork is completely eronius (SP?) and such a thing can not be compaired to CvsE in any way. Sexual reproduction is an observable biological process, which can be prooven to be true, whereas Evolution is a completely unobservable, unproovable, mathematically impossible biological process. And before someone brings up the "Evolution has been observed in a lab" arguement, I mean the origin of life from non-living matter, and its subsequent changes into different species, which has NOT been observed.
And there's nothing idiotic about the clause. Teaching only one would be no different than the hypothetical circumstances of there being two unproovable unified field theories and only teaching one or the other as absolute truth. Neither Creationism or Evolutionism can be prooven. If, however, one can be disprooven, it could be taught that the other is the only valid theory in existance, but still ONLY A THEORY.
*Notices RW, whom he never recalls seeing before*
*Reads profile*
Aah! You've only been here a couple months longer than I have, and yet you've posted over 600 times! Where are all your posts, that we've never run into each other?
------------------ "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people . . ." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." - Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1791
posted
Omega: You are quite correct in that Creationism nor Evolution can be conclusively proven, at this time. If studied over a long enough period of time, Evolution could be proven or disproven. However, evolution can be taught in the classroom, while creationism cannot. Why, you ask? A little thing in the US constitution called separation of church and state. Legally speaking, no public funded school can teach creationism inside it's doors. Whether one likes it or not, that's the way it is.
------------------ "I see you have the ring. And that your Schwartz is as big as mine! -Dark Helmet, Spaceballs
posted
unobservable... except that it's been observed numerous times. Of course, you've already discounted those examples with... um.. well, not much, really. unprovable.. see the above.
mathematically impossible.. well, I don't know where you get that, but I'd bet against it in a horse race.
creation, on the other hand, cannot be and has not been observed, for obvious reasons.
come to think of it, I've never actually OBSERVED a baby being put inside its mother's belly.. maybe that whole sperm and egg thing is just a smokescreen... maybe the baby was always there, and there was just some change in the mother's environment that produced it... and where is the mathematic equation that proves that two undifferentiated cells can form a complete being?
ah, Creationist logic. like throwing snowballs at a burning building.
Anyway, e's right. You can't teach it in schools because it's ILLEGAL, anyway. Offering support for a religiously-oriented supposition, with equal historical evidence as any other gods-and-giants creation myth, without insisting on covering ALL others, is a CLEAR violation.
Oh, and I'll see your Jefferson quote, and raise you mine.
------------------ 'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited October 11, 1999).]
"A little thing in the US constitution called separation of church and state."
There is no such thing. The only thing in the constitution relating to religion is the first sentence of the first ammendment. "Congress whall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." All that says is that the US government can't have anything to do with religion (and it could be interpreted that an individual state could in theory establish a state religion, but that's for another thread). It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. That also means that if the US government tries to pass any law pertaining to the teaching of evolution OR creation, I'll be so annoyed that I will personally take it to the supreme court and have the law overturned, but, again, another topic. Anyway, as far as the constitution is concerned, a state could teach Shinto in its schools and the national government couldn't do a thing about it. At least not legally, as if that matters to the current Atourney General and her boss.
1of2:
"Of course, you've already discounted those examples with... um.. well, not much, really."
Examples of one species changing directly into another? I don't recall. Care to refresh my memory?
"mathematically impossible.. well, I don't know where you get that, but I'd bet against it in a horse race."
I'm refering to the origin of life in this case. the amount of data in ONE average chromosome (anybody know in bytes?) could NOT in any reasonable hypothesis have formed into a usable physical shape, much less in the proper order to function as the effective programming of a metabolizing, self-replecating organism. That would be like telling a computer to spit out random ones and zeros and the ones and zeros just happening to be a Mac OS that would completely blow OS9 away, only far more unlikely.
"come to think of it, I've never actually OBSERVED a baby being put inside its mother's belly"
The point is that you COULD observe it, if you so chose (and you could get some willing subjects).
"where is the mathematic equation that proves that two undifferentiated cells can form a complete being?"
You don't need one. All the genetic data already exists. It's just a matter of combining it. The mathematical point I was making is described above.
"ah, Creationist logic. like throwing snowballs at a burning building."
Yeah, but YOU are the ones throwing the snowballs.
"Anyway, e's right."
No, e's not. See above. I would agree, however, that creationism shouldn't be taught arbitrarily any more than evolution should. How about this: if there is a significant number of students in a school that wish to have a certain religion taught, then the school should set up an OPTIONAL class to teach that religion. So if you live in an area where most people in your school are Bhudists, then the school would teach Bhudism, but you wouldn't be forced to take it, or penalized if you didn't. You could even have two or three different classes for different religions, if you had enough students willing to attend to fill the rooms to a reasonable degree. And I'm including evolutionism in the class "religion" for the purposes of this theory, so if a significant group of students wanted a class on evolution, then a class would be set up to teach it.
"In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own."
Agreed. There are, however, very few religions with actual priests any more. Priests had (have?) actual power over their "subjects'" (for lack of a better word) actions relating to anything. If you don't do what they say, you're excommunicated (or burned at the stake, depending on what era you're living in).
Yours, and two more.
"They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive." - Thomas Jefferson
------------------ "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people . . ." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." - Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1791
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited October 11, 1999).]
posted
OK, I should have seen that coming. I don't think I understood the original statement too well, but I mean that it's your building that's burning, and you're trying to put it out with snowballs.
------------------ "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people . . ." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." - Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1791
Printer-friendly view of this topic
