Many Texas Schools Teach Creationism

[LittleNipper]

Christians, Conservatives and Republicans believe God created man.
Godless liberal democrats believe man evolved from an ape.

When God/Jesus Christ/Christianity were allowed in schools most of the kids turned out great.
Now most of them are godless, demonic punks.

Apparently you don't know what Evolution really is....only what you've been told by anti-evolutionists.

Evolution is the belief that God created everything? Actually, it is the belief that every living thing came to be as a result of years of natural selection. You cannot have it both ways. Either God did it or nature did it. But since nature doesn't have a forethought, it is likely God did it. However, God doesn't need millions of years and neither should a scientist if he can develop a new species from one already existing. But anything scientists develop should not be able to unite with the parent species and have offspring. In other words, a cat is a cat is a cat. A dog is a dog is a dog. A horse is a horse is a horse. A fruit fly is a fruit fly ---- etc., etc., etc... HOWEVER a human cannot beget offspring from an ape no matter how much they try or look alike.

 

[LittleNipper]

You are now trolling.

Your objections has been noted and answered several times.

You don't get "just once more." That's over and done.

Evolution in the science room, humanities in the liberal arts.

So, you've run out of material? "No, it's not!" is not an answer. If someone (a Christian Scientist) can provide as much proof for the Genesis Flood as a evolutionist does for his theory, the Creationist has a decided advantage to be able to present his case in a science class. Plus this question has not been answered: Are you saying that blacks look more like apes and monkeys or that whites do??????

 

[paperview]

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are now trolling.

Your objections has been noted and answered several times.

You don't get "just once more." That's over and done.

Evolution in the science room, humanities in the liberal arts.

So, you've run out of material? "No, it's not!" is not an answer. If someone (a Christian Scientist) can provide as much proof for the Genesis Flood as a evolutionist does for his theory, the Creationist has a decided advantage to be able to present his case in a science class. Plus this question has not been answered: Are you saying that blacks look more like apes and monkeys or that whites do??????

I am saying that this argument by atheists and creationists has reach a limit of stupidity.

They, after all the answers have been given to their questions and objections, still want to protest.

SCOTUS, Congress, state legislatures, state boards, school district boards have made the appropriate decisions.

Don't like it?

Run for office.

Don't think you can convince folks you are right when folks know better than you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fundamentalists and atheists are in the fried brain category.

They want "just once more" and folks go, "like, no way, dude. You are creeping me out."

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You are the dumbass.

Separation of church and state is in the constitution.

It's in the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

That means separation of church and state, dumbass.

Anyone who quotes "separation of church and state" really has no historical concept of what the Founders had originally intended by the First Amendment. Those very words are found nowhere in the United States Constitution and is not supported by historical fact, nor is it the basis to which our Founders viewed religion. Try doing some research into United States History.

Try some basic logic and reading comprehension.

So, if we don't have separation of church and state, what is the official religion of the U.S. Government?

It seems obvious we are in need of some education on the understanding and relevance of the First Amendment. The left profess that it means all "public" display of religion be forbidden, but then get tripped up when they have to explain when Congress must ALSO not "prohibit the free exercise thereof". There is two segments to the first amendment addressing TWO concerns of government. Had there been a need to fully prohibit religion all together, the Founders simply would have stated "Congress shall make no law towards an establishment of religion". However the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof . It's basic logic and reading comprehension.

When the First Amendment was being discussed by the House Select Committee on August 15,1789, one possible version stated:

"NO RELIGION shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed"[1]

However that version was REJECTED as Peter Sylvester, Representative of New York stated the Select Committee's version:

"It might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether."[2]

James Madison then proposed the insertion of the word "national" before religion, but this was not accepted. Madison's interpretation of the wording was:

"That Congress should not establish a religion, and embrace the legal worship of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience."[3]

Congressman Benjamin Huntington, son of the prestigious governor of Connecticut, protested that:

"The words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion."[4]

Congressman Huntington then made the suggestion:

"The Amendment be made in such a way as to secure the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all."[5]

Madison then responded agreeably to Congressman Huntington and Congresan Sylvester, that he:

".....believes that the people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two [Congregational and Angelican] combined and ESTABLISH a religion to which they would COMPEL OTHERS TO CONFORM."[6]



There's that word "Establishment" and the TRUE concerns of the Founders, a SINGLE sect or denomination to which all other religious denominations must conform to. Those who profess no religion at all was not the overall focus surrounding the First Amendment (sorry to deflate those views that presumably think otherwise).

Should you wish to need further examples surrounding the TRUE intent of the First Amendment, I have plenty more sources and quotes that I can include in another reply. To fully comprehend it's meaning, you must first have the basic understanding of the word "establishment", before you go on citing some other quote that has nothing to do with the final interpretation of the First Amendment.



SOURCES:

[1]Congress of the United States of America August 15, 1789, the House Select version of the First Amendment. Aunals of the Congress of the United States - First Congress (Washington D.C. : Gales & Seaton, 1834), Vol. I, p. 434 David Barton, The Myth of Separation (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press, 1991) p. 27, Edwin S. Gaustad, Neither King nor Prelate - Religion and the New Nation, 1776-1826 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eardmans Publishing Company. 1993), p. 157

[2]Congress of the United States of America August 15,1789, Peter Sylvester of New York debating the First Amendment. M.E. Bradford, Religion & The Framers: The Biographical Evidence (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1991), p. 11

[3] Congress of the United States of America August 15, 1789 James Madison in the debates on the First Amendment. Wells Bradley, "Religion and Government: The Early Days" p. 7

[4] Congress of the United States of America August 1789, Benjamin Huntington, in the debates on the First Amendment. M.E. Bradford, Religion & The Framers: The Biographical Evidence (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1991),p. 7

[5]Congress of the United States of America August 1789, Benjamin Huntington proposing adjustment to the wording of the First Amendment. M.E. Bradford, Religion & The Framers: The Biographical Evidence (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1991), p. 11. Wells Bradley, "Religion and Government: The Early Days" p. 7

[6]Congress of the United States of America August 1789, James Madison's response to Benjamin Huntington and Peter Sylvester regarding the First Amendment. Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, eds. The Founder's Constitution, 5 vols (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), Vol. V, p. 93 M.E. Bradford, Religion & The Framers-The Biographical Evidence (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation, Inc, 1991), p. 12

 

[JakeStarkey]

The true intent of the 1st Amendment is determined by SCOTUS as it reviews challenges to laws.

For instance, anyone can pray in public school, as long as that person does not disturb his neighbor or interrupt the educational process.

 

[BlindBoo]

Apparently you don't know what Evolution really is....only what you've been told by anti-evolutionists.

I know what it really is and I am STILL not descended from an ape.

DNA study reveals clues to human, ape evolution | Newsroom | Washington University in St. Louis

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The true intent of the 1st Amendment is determined by SCOTUS as it reviews challenges to laws.

For instance, anyone can pray in public school, as long as that person does not disturb his neighbor or interrupt the educational process.

The true intent is looking to the Founders and the views expressed concerning the First Amendment. It's the job of the United States Supreme Court to examine the Constitution and be able to accurately back up their decision by citing its original intent .... not to "set new presidence".

 

[TooTall]

Look, we know of entire species that show that evolution is true. For example, homo erectus, homo neanderthal, homo habilis, and homo ergaster. These are transitional forms. Evolution isn't just my opinion, it is a fact based on 150 years of science and is believed by 98% of scientists. This fact is supported by thousands of scientific papers and research. So, no this isn't just my opinion.

I ways ask this simple question. If we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes?

LOL You obviously weren't paying attention in school. You need to do some make up reading.

I thought an intelligent, thoughtful atheist would tell me the answer. Then again...................

 

[JakeStarkey]

The true intent of the 1st Amendment is determined by SCOTUS as it reviews challenges to laws.

For instance, anyone can pray in public school, as long as that person does not disturb his neighbor or interrupt the educational process.

The true intent is looking to the Founders and the views expressed concerning the First Amendment. It's the job of the United States Supreme Court to examine the Constitution and be able to accurately back up their decision by citing its original intent .... not to "set new presidence".

You truly don't understand. The doctrine of judicial review is nothing new, and the Founders' original intent would be for us to have a document that works in each age.

 

[Freewill]

From the link above: "Unfortunately, the evidence for this diaspora is a good deal less solid than the evidence for the flood itself. Linguists have long known how to reconstruct ancient languages by looking at words that have survived in the descendants of those languages today. The date of an event like the split-up of the Indo-European languages can then be estimated by comparing those words with artifacts found in excavations — a language probably won't have a word for "wheel," for example, unless it actually uses wheeled vehicles. "It is unlikely that the Indo-European languages split up before 3500 B.C. (that is, 2,000 years after the Black Sea flood)," says University of Chicago linguist Bill Darden, basing his conclusion on this sort of argument. If he and his colleagues are right, then the diaspora part of the flood story will be just another beautiful theory shot down by ugly facts.

Read more: Evidence for a Flood | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
Follow us: [MENTION=25239]smith[/MENTION]sonianMag on Twitter

Local floods, sure. Regional floods, perhaps. Worldwide flood with Noah's Ark bobbing along, nope, no proof scientifically for that.

Since you wish to parse the Bible down to a very literalist interpretation thinking that proves it wrong. Why don't you tell us exactly what was meant by the whole world? My wife is my whole world.

 

[JakeStarkey]

From the link above: "Unfortunately, the evidence for this diaspora is a good deal less solid than the evidence for the flood itself. Linguists have long known how to reconstruct ancient languages by looking at words that have survived in the descendants of those languages today. The date of an event like the split-up of the Indo-European languages can then be estimated by comparing those words with artifacts found in excavations — a language probably won't have a word for "wheel," for example, unless it actually uses wheeled vehicles. "It is unlikely that the Indo-European languages split up before 3500 B.C. (that is, 2,000 years after the Black Sea flood)," says University of Chicago linguist Bill Darden, basing his conclusion on this sort of argument. If he and his colleagues are right, then the diaspora part of the flood story will be just another beautiful theory shot down by ugly facts.

Read more: Evidence for a Flood | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
Follow us: [MENTION=25239]smith[/MENTION]sonianMag on Twitter

Local floods, sure. Regional floods, perhaps. Worldwide flood with Noah's Ark bobbing along, nope, no proof scientifically for that.

Since you wish to parse the Bible down to a very literalist interpretation thinking that proves it wrong. Why don't you tell us exactly what was meant by the whole world? My wife is my whole world.

A very literalist interpretation can be proved wrong quite a bit. That is why I am not a Biblical literalist. I can think. Now certainly I think regional and local flood stories worked their way into ancient myths. The scriptures certainly can have been influenced by Sumerian flood myths.

Now is the actual story the point to prove, or is it the spiritual meaning associated with the story far more important?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The true intent of the 1st Amendment is determined by SCOTUS as it reviews challenges to laws.

For instance, anyone can pray in public school, as long as that person does not disturb his neighbor or interrupt the educational process.

The true intent is looking to the Founders and the views expressed concerning the First Amendment. It's the job of the United States Supreme Court to examine the Constitution and be able to accurately back up their decision by citing its original intent .... not to "set new presidence".

You truly don't understand. The doctrine of judicial review is nothing new, and the Founders' original intent would be for us to have a document that works in each age.

So that is why we have some here on this thread looking to cite quotes from Madison and Jefferson to try and find support for "separation of church and state" with regard to the First Amendment. Seems to me you can't decide which side of the fence you want to be on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

shakles, you are smarter than to try that track.

Those are merely a demonstration to the nonsense that the principle of separation of church and state did not exist at that time and was not embedded in the language of the Constitution.

Fact: you believe that an amendment should specifically spell out the doctrine of judicial review.

Fact: you believe that an amendment should specifically spell out separation of church and state.

Fact: neither is necessary.

 

[DGS49]

Being the product of a pretty good Catholic High School in Pittsburgh, I was taught the basics of (the two views of) Evolution, and the story of Genesis. I was taught that the Bible contained both "historical" and "allegorical" texts, the former being the authors' attempts to record what actually occurred for historical purposes (and recognizing their total ignorance of, for example, astronomy), while the latter were NOT intended to be historical or scientific, but merely to illustrate certain fundamental truths about God and its relationship to Mankind. The book of Genesis was decidedly in the allegorical category.

Thus, we had no heartburn with geological, anthropological, and biological timelines that grossly "contradicted" the stories of Genesis, or with carbon (and other scientific) dating that was used to corroborate timeline theories. Had any science teacher in our high school told us that the earth was 6,000 years old, he would have been laughed at (and probably fired).

"Creationism" is not scientific, but there are valid scientific "talking points" that give "Creationists" comfort. These are talking points that highlight difficulties with the "Theory of Evolution." A few of these talking points (written by a non-scientist) are,

• No human has ever observed the evolution of one species into another species,
• No one has ever adequately explained the spontaneous generation of life,
• Many "obvious" evolutionary progressions (e.g., the evolution of miniature horses into modern horses) fall flat when you look at the actual ages of the relevant fossils,
• There is no known mechanism by which a simple organism can evolve into a more complex organism, and
• there are organs in animals that cannot be explained by evolution, since they have no value or function until they are fully formed (eyes)
• and so on.

For those who care enough to look, Ann Coulter has a chapter in one of her books that elaborates these problems with Evolution in great detail, with citations to appropriate authoritative source materials.

As indicated quite clearly above, most people who cite the First Amendment and the non-existent "wall of separation" between Church and State, have no ******* idea what they are talking about. One need only observe the first five words of the Amendment ("Congress shall make no law...") to expose their ignorance, in most cases.

The Federal Government cannot name a State religion (like in England and several other European countries). That's about it. That's all the first part of the Amendment means.

And any science teacher - in Texas, or anyplace else - who teaches "Creationism," is defrauding his or her students, and should be disciplined appropriately.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree with those who want to pretend SCOTUS has not decided all of that are ignorant despite their education.

 

[Edgetho]

I agree with those who want to pretend SCOTUS has not decided all of that are ignorant despite their education.

The "Big Bang" was a Creationist Event. Nobody doubts that. Nobody.

As to the Bible? We need to think back to when the Bible was written, especially the Old Testament.

The Jews were just out of Egypt and didn't care much for the fact that whatever Pharaoh was on the throne at the time determined what Laws were enacted and enforced.

One Pharaoh might worship Ra while another worshiped Min while another worshiped....

And if you wanted to live for very long in Egypt, you obeyed Pharaoh.

Each Pharaoh had different laws. Each Pharaoh had different rules. each Pharaoh had different morals or lack there of.

The Jews tried to reconcile all this confusion by creating One God.

One God, one law, one rule. No matte who was Pharaoh or King -- One God, One Law.

Many of those old laws and rules were about simple things, Like, killing people for no reason is very uncool. As is dishonoring your parents. And not bathing. And not sleeping with your sister. And not killing your neighbor so you can steal his wife. And not eating Pork because it was full of Trichinosis.

The Old Testament was a lot about teaching people how to live with each and laying down laws.

That they did this under the guise of Religion is not coincidental. How else could they do it? Magic? Logic? Reason?

Good luck with that.

If I were to task you with travelling back in time 5,000 years and teaching those people how to live with each other, how would you do it? What device would you use to get your point across?

The Bible and the Judeo-Christian Religion are the most important historical societal structure of all time.

They gave us Law, they gave us morals, they gave us organization, they gave us the ability to learn and grow.

For those reasons alone our Religion deserves the utmost respect. Without it, we'd be in deep, deep shit. If we even existed at all, we'd be savages constantly murdering and butchering each other...... Like certain other people of certain other religions do every day. And they're about a thousand years behind us. Left to their own devices, they'd still be in the 7th Century.

Respect judaism, respect Christianity. They deserve it

 

[g5000]

If that is being done in liberal arts or humanities classrooms, good.

If that is being done in the science classroom, very poor.

It's not good in any format to teach the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

According to the subject report, it is being taught in English and Social Studies.

 

[Edgetho]

If that is being done in liberal arts or humanities classrooms, good.

If that is being done in the science classroom, very poor.

It's not good in any format to teach the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

According to the subject report, it is being taught in English and Social Studies.

I agree; with the caveat that most people understand that the Bible was written before the invention of the integer 'Zero' (0).

And that anything over the number 40 (hence Noah's forty days and forty nights of rain) gave them trouble.

Even the early Romans had trouble counting past ten thousand, which to them was 'Myriad'.

The West had trouble counting and Algebra was non existent until late in the Medieval period due to trying to Multiply XLVII times IVLXMII.

Kinda tough, even with an Abacus.

And in case you're even thinking it -- The Arabs didn't invent the Zero, the Indians did. Arabs were just about as backward then as they are now. They got most of their knowledge from India which they managed to Blockade from the West. Which was what the Crusades was about..... Access to the most advanced civilizations on Earth at the time -- China and India. The Arabs (actually, the Turks) had effectively blocked the trade routes with India.

Long story.