On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:11:09 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:02:13 -0400, Jim wrote:


Sorry fella. You cannot teach history without touching on religion.
Also, with few exceptions, the federal government has no jurisdiction
over what may or may not be taught in public schools.

Well, Intelligent Design is one of those exceptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmil...chool_District

Hmmm - interesting.

I found this quote from Kenneth Miller, the lead witness, very telling
and very similar to my own views:

1) "[i]t falsely undermines the scientific status of evolutionary
theory and gives students a false understanding of what theory
actually means." And 2) "as a person of faith who was blessed with two
daughters, who raised both of my daughters in the church, and had they
been given an education in which they were explicitly or implicitly
forced to choose between God and science, I would have been furious,
because I want my children to keep their religious faith."

Sounds good to me.

On 10/6/09 8:27 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:57:21 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:42:08 -0400, H the K wrote:


Prayers and religious teachings have no place in public K-12 schools.
You want kids to learn your religion? Send them to a religious school.

Exactly, we expect and demand the government to stay out of our
churches. It's not the government's responsibility to teach religion.
That's what parents, churches, and religious schools are for.

Let me ask you this.

Would it be acceptable to teach the subject of creationism as part of
the social sciences education? If not, why not?


No. It would be the teaching of a superstitious religious belief.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

John H Rant wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:24:47 -0400, Jim wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:02:13 -0400, Jim wrote:


Sorry fella. You cannot teach history without touching on religion.
Also, with few exceptions, the federal government has no jurisdiction
over what may or may not be taught in public schools.
Well, Intelligent Design is one of those exceptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmil...chool_District
"Let's not make a Federal case out of it." That's my cry.
The case shouldn't have been heard in a federal court. It could have
been settled at the local level. The federal government is walking all
over state and local rights. Ultimately, the peoples voice was heard
when the school committee members were fired. Justice was served "by the
people".

Crap, if everyone felt like you, the ACLU would be out of work and
unemployment would get even higher.

No comprende.

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:36:19 -0400, Jim wrote:

John H Rant wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:24:47 -0400, Jim wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:02:13 -0400, Jim wrote:


Sorry fella. You cannot teach history without touching on religion.
Also, with few exceptions, the federal government has no jurisdiction
over what may or may not be taught in public schools.
Well, Intelligent Design is one of those exceptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmil...chool_District
"Let's not make a Federal case out of it." That's my cry.
The case shouldn't have been heard in a federal court. It could have
been settled at the local level. The federal government is walking all
over state and local rights. Ultimately, the peoples voice was heard
when the school committee members were fired. Justice was served "by the
people".

Crap, if everyone felt like you, the ACLU would be out of work and
unemployment would get even higher.

No comprende.

La mierda, si cada una sintiera tiene gusto de usted, el ACLU estaría
sin trabajo y el desempleo conseguiría incluso más alto.

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:02:13 -0400, Jim wrote:

H the K wrote:
On 10/6/09 6:53 AM, Jim wrote:
CalifBill wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 10/5/09 3:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global
Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.
None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any longer.

There isn't a thimbleful of evidence of any sort to support
creationism.

How did everything first start?

I suspect that science will eventually bump into that stumbling block .
They have a long ways to go before they realize they can't solve the
mystery of the beginning of life.
In the absence of hard facts to disprove religious beliefs I would
suggest to the faithful to *Keep the faith baby*.
In the case of school policies, The only issue the federal government
should be involved with is insisting that The pledge of allegiance be
recited, in every classroom, in its original form, by every student, in
English, at the beginning of each school day. Weather or not prayers are
encouraged, or historical teachings of a religious nature are included
in curriculum, should be decided by popular vote at the local level.

Science may someday solve the mystery of the origins of the universe and
life. Religion never will.

The funny thing is that science itself evolves as mankind learns more
about his surroundings. In terms of solving the supernatural, all
religion does, really, is change the form of its deities every couple of
thousand years.

Prayers and religious teachings have no place in public K-12 schools.
You want kids to learn your religion? Send them to a religious school.

Sorry fella. You cannot teach history without touching on religion.

Good point. How does one teach the Reformation without it?

Or the Crusades.

Or the history of Ancient Egypt or Mayan civilization for that matter.

Also, with few exceptions, the federal government has no jurisdiction
over what may or may not be taught in public schools.

Oddly, I agree with you with the caveat being that certain universal
standards must apply across the nation.

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:55:53 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:52:22 -0500, wrote:

To contend that science "undresses" faith is akin to trying to call a
trump suit in a game of chess. It's meaningless.

The problem is that Faith has power and that is what annoys the more
vorciforous objectors - they don't understand the nature of belief.

Which is a curiosity because a lot of what they believe to be "fact"
and "science" are also articles of faith.

Amusing in some ways.

I couldn't have said it better myself, Tom.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Oct 6, 5:55*am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:52:22 -0500, wrote:
To contend that science "undresses" faith is akin to trying to call a
trump suit in a game of chess. *It's meaningless.

The problem is that Faith has power and that is what annoys the more
vorciforous objectors - they don't understand the nature of belief.


True. Napoleon recognized the power of Christian fait (If I may single
it out) when he said:

""I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man.
Between him and every other person in the world
there is no possible term of comparison.
Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I founded empires.
But on what did we rest the creations of our genius?
Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love;
and at this hour millions of people would die for Him."

I'd say he was right.

On 10/6/09 9:50 AM, Gene wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:34:02 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

chief vatican astronomer has little use for the ignorant superstition
of creationism:

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articl...d-scientist/1/


He'll probably suffer the fate of his predecessor:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-debate.html

These guys haven't figured out their job isn't to be scientists, but
to be PR folks at the will and pleasure of their "Holy Father."

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, on the other hand, still faces
fierce resistance in some circles, ......

Using Charles Darwin's understanding of evolution to discuss modern
science is a lot like trying to explain electricity in the way
Benjamin Franklin understood it.


Darwin's theories, not surprisingly, have evolved and have been combined
and broadened. Here's a good place to start:

Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, by Julian Huxley.

Your analogy, by the way, is spot-on.





--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On Oct 6, 8:50*am, Gene wrote:

Using Charles Darwin's understanding of evolution to discuss modern
science is a lot like trying to explain electricity in the way
Benjamin Franklin understood it.
--


Good point, Gene.

On 10/6/09 9:51 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 6, 5:55 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:52:22 -0500, wrote:
To contend that science "undresses" faith is akin to trying to call a
trump suit in a game of chess. It's meaningless.

The problem is that Faith has power and that is what annoys the more
vorciforous objectors - they don't understand the nature of belief.


True. Napoleon recognized the power of Christian fait (If I may single
it out) when he said:

""I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man.
Between him and every other person in the world
there is no possible term of comparison.
Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I founded empires.
But on what did we rest the creations of our genius?
Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love;
and at this hour millions of people would die for Him."

I'd say he was right.


Millions of people have died for Jesus, a sure sign that the empire was
founded on love.





--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All