Creationism and public schools

Thank you Jw for the report, I'm positively astounded

Apparently when they wrote the Constitution, "Establishment" had a somewhat different meaning than today, when it means to advocate or endorse

http://onelook.com/?w=Establishment&ls=a

The above is the actual text for the first amendment.Its been upheld by the US SUpreme Court that "establishment" , in this case, is a verb meaning to create a state religion. Where we get afoul of the Amendment is when the Creationists want to teach CREATIONISM in Biology class. The USSC has consistently found that "Creationism" is a religious doctrine, not a scientific one.

Yea, Man, I agree most emphatically. However I don't see how the amendment forbids us from explaining to the kids what it is; that is of course also any conflicting doctrines

Let's face it!



Better, eh?

Nope, I am NOT a creationist, But I am convinced that evolution is a religion too because the lack of evidence is HUGE! And with HUGE, I mane HUGE!
It has more holes in it then a bunch of chesse!

we know what you "believe". So what? Youre a crumb in the plate. You've got nothing worth listening to and no intelligence to make a decent argument. Try arguing againt what the US Supreme Court has said about "creationism" and science

Once more. Creationism as a "movement" or a "Religious belief" can be taught within the confins of a class on comparative religions or philosophy or even history.NOT SCIENCE.

I always have to laugh when I read your postings!
First, you start out with a LIE! You have NO CLUE as to what I believe.
Really, no clue at all.

And second, or maybe first, the only thing you seem to be abl;e to do is show some Ad Hominems and nothing more. You really never have written anything here with some substance. nowhere.

anyway, back to ignore, girly.

.

Creeps me out too, grrrrr.

Once more. Man I AGREE. Where did I maintain otherwise

Per Jw above I was astounded to learn that it's okay to teach about that stuff in college but not grade school, presumably because the kids "don't have a choice"

My first reaction: But that's the dumbest reason I can imagine. However thinking it over I might concede that maybe its classwork shouldn't be graded or could be refused if Dad and Mom object. Yes there are issues

Its not tht its OK, colleges don't necessarily define limits to what they will teach in a class. HOWEVER, I doubt that any college, regionally accredited, will teach Creationism an/or ID as a SCIENCE in biology,geology,or biochemistry. Creationism is usually discussed within a context of providing historical perspective of how a science or inquiry matured through time. Darwin was studying to be a country minister, that's a fact. Vis Plastica was considered as a way for a wise god to "salt" the earth with fake "fossils" so e would be confused. (That is hotory). Taught in the context of here did evolution come from and who were the actors before Darwin, Mendel, Werner, Haldane,Cope, and Marsh (etc).
When I taught geology, I ran several seminar classes in which the students took up entire concepts like Catastrophism or Lamarkianism and how and why they are still held by some .

College is more about deeper understandings that drive investigation. AND, subject to not going beyond the barriers of Accreditational scrutiny (we teach natural Selection not Creationism in college biology and geology, unless we are a Christian Fundamentalist College like Bob Jones or Liberty U or Ave Maria College) (and most all of those don't teach evolution at all

fear!

This is utter bullsh*t. The issue came up long before the practice of incorporation (if you don't know what incorporation means in this context, do a little studying, rather than just assuming you know like most shallow journalists do--and don't bother with "One Look"). In 1832, there were terrible outbreaks of cholera in the United States. Clergymen called on President Jackson to announce a national day of prayer and thanksgiving. but he refused, citing the separation of church and state. The issue of separation had not come up previously. Henry Clay, who had long been Jackson's political rival, tried to whip up christian outrage against Jackson--but it didn't take, Jackson easily won the 1832 election. Some historians (rather tenuously, in my never humble opinion) date the birth of conservative christian politics to this event.

Your "One Look" links are typical the the BS you post here. Nothing in that link authorizes your claim, and people here shouldn't be obliged to try to parse out your linguistic illusions in an attempt to understand what you claim.

it is all about fear!

the extremely stupid religion called 'science' is loosing it's control!

And rightly so!

rather than posting "definitions " of the word establishment, try to understand how its used in the US Constitution.

Where you get all bollixed up is to consider that there is some "right" to teach creationism to kids in science class. As everyone has been patiently trying to explain, "CREATIONISM" is a religious doctrine that derives from several Fundamental Christian doctrines. Its a literal (Almost always) Biblical interpretation of the origin and development of life on earth. SCience is (or is supposed to be) a series of repeatable, testable facts based on evidence which explain the same thing.

TEACHING (yes not advocating) Creationism in a non-science class as a review of forces of history, is good an helps the kids sort out cultural history. HOWEVER, when its taught in science as a valid testable alternative to science , THAT IS ADVOCACY, whether you see it or not. Because if it weren't advocacy, then youd have to also teach the origins of life on the planet from the views of the Navajo, the Mochi, and several other myths of life .
The US SUPREME COURT has resolved this issue to the satisfaction of most. However, the Fundamental sects are still working this over to come up with a new wrinkle with which to challenge the "establishment Clause" nd hopefully, to overturn the 75 years of separation of church and state in the public schools.

The latest case brought by the Fundamentalists, in KANSAS is interesting because the ID lobby has turned it around by inferring(In its complaint) that biological science is actually a religion and that KANSAS is guilty of ESTABLISHING A RELIGION BASED ON EVOLUTION (Sorta the same **** that Quahog is ranting ). This will be interesting if it goes higher. (On December 6 2014 this complaint was stymied by the Kansas Court of Appeals , the complaint against the Kansas board of Ed has been tossed out and wont be heard).
Its interesting (to me anyway) , because if it goes higher (To Fed District Court then even to the US Supreme Court), the very laws and evidence that supports SCIENCE v CREATIONISM will, in my mind, become one of the front issues of the case.
Im no lawyer so this is just my guess. Several previous cases have identified several of the "tests" that indicate what is science and what is not. Also som of these "tests" help the Courts determine what is advocacy as a POV in education and what is not.

I actually hope it goes farther because I cannot see the US SUpreme Court (even with its Conservative makeup) , resetting the nations wristwatches back to 1858. Id be following this case like I follow my Phillies (religiously)

Man I couldn't agree more. Where have I ever said anything to the contrary

I haven't had much time to come back to this but I am pleased with the number of responses. As usual, the people of A2K came up with some useful information.

I'm teaching a themed freshman Comp II class, Writing about Religion and Politics in the US. I had no idea Andrew Jackson was asked to promote a day of prayer but crusty old Jackson would have held his ground on this. Later, Zachary Taylor would allow such a day following another cholera outbreak. I have some material to use, although there is no lack of material on the subject of religion and politics in America.

What kind of class would you teach it in? It isn't science, and so does not belong there.

Let me see. Since Darwin, there have been tons of scientific studies, books, and papers relative to the study of evolution. All have supported eolution and none have invalidated it. So, your statement that "the lack of evidence is HUGE! And with HUGE" is patently untrue.

Conflicting doctrines such as "A giant Cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so silent and peaceful that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams motion. From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Ohm. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy.

The night had ended, Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma. he awaited the Lord's command.

Vishnu spoke to his servant: "It's time to begin", Brahma vowed. Vishnu commanded: "Create the world". A wind swept the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished.

Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. with the third part of the flower he created the skies.

The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created animals and the insects to live in the land. He made birds and many fish. To all these creatures he gave the sense of touch and smell. He gave them the power to see, hear and move. The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sound of Brahma's creation."