fred wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1128449713.977970.234370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1128447100.582163.291020@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <UAy0f.3260$K8.2553@bignews7.bellsouth.net> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <qd2dnbARp-PCMt_eRVn-hQ@ez2.net> "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> writes:
EVEN EASIER,
Why can't liberals teach evolution as another way that life might
have originated instead of THE way?
Because that would be teaching lousy science?
No one who understands the subjects says that evolution is the way
life originated.
-- cary
Are you talking about "evolution"
Or are you talking about "creation"
You write, "No one who understands the subjects", would you list some names
of those who do understand?
Well, Jeff for one. Evolution, as the theory currently stands, is
a description of how organisms change once they exist. It
says nothing about how life arose from inanimate matter.
How naive can you get? Atheists have essentially pirated informally
recognized evolution concepts, such as the presumption that all life is
a result of random chance, to mudsling at Christians.
Good for them. In the meantime, no who both understands the concepts
involved and who is intellectually honest will say that evolution explains
the origin of life from non-living matter. That would be as misinformed
as saying the chemistry explains the origins of matter.
That's a good point and thank you for your honesty.
However, creationists are battling evolutionists in the courts with
respect to wanting to teach creationism in the classrooms.
A truly bad idea. Since there are several hundred known creation
myths, presenting all of them would leave little time for teaching
anything else. And choosing just one creation myth to present would
clearly violate government neutrality vis a vis religion.
What a copout reply. :^(
You are deliberately making the issue more complicated than it is. For
example, consider that a given public school could finance classroom
discussions about the Genesis version of creation with funds provided
by local Christian families.
It doesn't need financing. If it were legal, it would cost nothing. But
it's not, as discussion of Genesis in a public school counts as
establishment of religion, according to the Supreme Court.
I can imagine the response of those "wanting to teach creationism in
the classrooms" if teacher chose, say, to present the theory of
evolution side by side with the Haida theory that Raven coaxed
First Men from under the clamshell, First Women out of that
rather suggestive chiton.
You're not even trying to make the system work. You're trying to
divide not unify.
You don't consider attempting to include one of thousands of creation
myths in the public school curriculum divisive?
And whoever decided unity so great? Diversity sustains life and makes
it interesting.
But hey, the creationists' rallying cry is "Teach it all; let the children
decide for themselves". And to do that fairly, you'd have
to present the creation theories of all religions, mythologies,
and cultures. Anything else would hardly be fair to the children.
Again, local Christian families could finance the Genesis version of
creation in their local public schools.
Why can't they teach their kids themselves? It's cheaper, and actually
within their rights. (Teaching religion in schools is not.)
All it
takes is for one student to question how life originated. Because
creationism is currently banned from the classroom a teacher is
practically forced to say, "Who knows?" Maybe life is just a freak
occurance".
Actually, an honest teacher is forced to say merely "No one knows".
The problem is that this seemingly innocent reply just
planted the seed of atheism in the minds of school children.
A thought no child should ever entertain.
You're looking for ways to unconstitutionally limit freedom of
religious expression.
You're looking for ways to unconstitutionally establish a religion in a
government agency.
You have every right to practice your superstitions and rites on
private property. In fact, you have the right to use public land for
religious purposes in many circumstances. One of the few limitations on
your rights is teaching your religion in a public school, and that's a
limitation established by the constitution.
.
