Well as it wasn't by the judge, it doesn't really matter.
"Creationism in a cheap tuxedo."
Really? Let's take a look at one of the "quotes" in question. I'll even do the hard work for you.Your opinion which you have NOT supported. IMO it's a reputable site.
Our planet however does have scars. Scars that it should not have if the earth was only 6,000 years old. The K-T impact left a layer of iridium in sedimentary rock. In many places that layer of iridium infused rock has millions of years of sedimentary rock of top it.Well you can use all the imagination you want, and obviously scars would not be on a day old person.
Do you believe that all religions should be taught in schools or just Christianity?NOT what Judge Jones said, so I'll take his word for it.
Of course there is bias if nothing religious is allowed. Excluding anything religious is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Which religions do you want taught in science class?The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
"But to the rest speak I, NOT THE LORD..." (emphasis added); and 2 Cor 11:17 "That which I speak, I speak [it] NOT AFTER THE LORD..." (emphasis added).
Which religions do you want taught in science class?
Really? Let's take a look at one of the "quotes" in question. I'll even do the hard work for you.
Your site claims Steven J. Gould says this:
"We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record." [Gould, Stephen J., The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology, Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7.]
Notice the fact that they have capitalized the word "We" and placed a period at the end of the sentence. This implies (well not really but trying to be generous here) that this is the full and complete sentence by Gould. It is not.
The full and complete sentence is this;
"Just as we have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off up on an imperfect fossil record, so too have we long recognized the rapid, if not sudden, turnover of faunas in episodes of mass extinction."
As you can see, the full and complete sentence does not start with the word "We" nor does it end with the word "record." So that is two lies from your website in just one quote. Not to mention that doesn't take into account the context of what Gould was saying. We can get into that if you like (or you can read about it here Quote #31). But I've already shown you that your "reputable site" has lied about the quote itself.
In Britain religious education is compulsory, but it is not taught in science class.
But the real question is: What does the Bible itself say about its own "infallibility"? Actually, it says nothing.
The Bible in its current compilation didn't even exist until several centuries after the last book was written. Why are religious zealots so quick to claim divine authorship of a book that doesn't even claim it for itself (with the exception of specific portions of law and prophecy such as "Thus sayeth the Lord...," but not to the modern Bible as a whole)? The Bible was a collection of separate writings (laws, plays, poems, songs, histories and letters) by individual religious commentators who never imagined their writings would ever be considered divine.
They are just like modern writers, making commentary and analysis, who just happened to have their works assembled and voted on by later believers who then canonized their words. They refer to the sanctity of sacred scripture (the body already canonized before their time -- such as the Law of Moses and the writings of the Old Testament prophets) never imagining that someday THEIR writings, letters, or whatever will be added to the canon.
Paul the Apostle, who clearly believed that the established scripture of his day was inspired (see 2Tim 3:16), also clearly acknowledged that some of his own writings were NOT, as when he wrote in 1 Cor 7:12
It is not necessary for good Christians to accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God in order to understand and believe in Jesus' teachings of universal compassion. After all, the early Christians themselves did not have an "infallible Bible" to carry around with them -- it wasn't even compiled until centuries later. Just as we gain insights and understanding from modern writers and commentators of today, without claiming that they are divine and infallible, we can gain insight and understanding from ancient writers, as long as we consider their works for what they are, with critical thinking and common sense -- not just blind faith.
We should accept the Bible for what it is: often wise and inspirational, but many times filled with error and cruelty. It is an important historical relic, and the original seed from which much of ethical theory in the Western world has developed, but its words must be discussed, analyzed and evaluated on their merits -- as the writing of men, not of God. It does not claim to be anything more.
Our planet however does have scars. Scars that it should not have if the earth was only 6,000 years old. The K-T impact left a layer of iridium in sedimentary rock. In many places that layer of iridium infused rock has millions of years of sedimentary rock of top it.
There is absolutely no reason that layer should exist that far down in the geologic record if the earth were only 6,000 years old.
Do you believe that all religions should be taught in schools or just Christianity?
If schools have a SCIENCE program, then they should have a RELIGION program. IF schools only want to teach FACT, then ALL theory should be eliminated.