YEC is physically impossible

[BCP1928]

Where do you get Dominionism?

The only document I know of to glean from would be the text book Pandas And People.

Is there something in that book that proves religious agenda, or are there other documents you can refer to?

The writings of R. J. Rushdoony The Institutes of Biblical Law and Frances Schaeffer. A Christian Manifesto will do as starters.

The Wedge Document wasn't designed for the public classroom.

No, but it expresses the real intentions of the Discovery Institute

 

[BCP1928]

The judge at the end of the Dover Trial stated that ID may be true, but not science. Isn't science about finding truth?

It is about finding truth in the material world. It's one thing to say that God designed the universe and everything in it. All theists would agree with you. So what? Such an assertion unfalsifiable. All you have done is add "Designer" to the names of God.

On the other hand, ID goes on to claim that the presence of a designer is empirically verifiable, raising some theological issues which cause many Christians (including the Pope, btw) to reject it. Others reject it because, as science it is badly flawed.

 

[BCP1928]

Have you ever heard of The MindUp program?

Sure. What about it?

 

[Roderick Spode]

"Of people and pandas" started as a "creation science" textbook. CS was an earlier attempt to dust up Christian creation theology as science and everyone knew it. Pulling in a few creationists from other religions doesn't end the religious purpose.

The term creation doesn't necessitate biblical creation. Did the book reference any biblical scriptures, say, in Genesis?

Then why did you bring it up?

Actually it was someone else who brought up the Wedge Document. I simply addressed it. I'll expound on this on that person's last post. I think there will be more room there.

There are other ID hucksters out there, but the DI is known only for pushing the pseudoscience of ID.

They seem to be accused of more than that.

Of course, you mentioned it.

Yes, and there seems to be a lack of evidence to the claims.

Taking religion and trying to make it look like science doesn't make it science or make it not religion.
If you take a science (like quantum mechanics) and try to turn it into a religion or drape religious dress over it doesn't make the actual science part not science, but any religious thing you put on top is still just religion and not science.

What I meant was, if ID violates the Constitution, a violation of religious freedom, then it doesn't matter whatsoever whether or not it's pseudo science. Wouldn't ID being unconstitutional be enough?

ID was never not going to be religion since it was born with religious intent.

But what difference does it make if it's unconstitutional?

 

[Roderick Spode]

That at some point in history there lived what could be regarded as a first human man and woman? Of course not that is nothing but a commonplace. That the story in the Bible is a literally accurate account of their life and times? I don't think any evolutionary biologist, Christian or otherwise, cares whether it is disproved or not unless creationists harass them over it.

Are there not theistic evolutionists who believe/accept the first 2 humans Adam and Eve?

 

[BCP1928]

The term creation doesn't necessitate biblical creation. Did the book reference any biblical scriptures, say, in Genesis?

Actually it was someone else who brought up the Wedge Document. I simply addressed it. I'll expound on this on that person's last post. I think there will be more room there.

They seem to be accused of more than that.

Yes, and there seems to be a lack of evidence to the claims.

What I meant was, if ID violates the Constitution, a violation of religious freedom, then it doesn't matter whatsoever whether or not it's pseudo science. Wouldn't ID being unconstitutional be enough?

But what difference does it make if it's unconstitutional?

ID claims that the presence of a designer can be empirically verified. If that claim can be substantiated scientifically then it is science, regardless of religious motivations. The systematic study of geology began in the 18th century with investigators, most of them Christians, who wanted to find evidence of Noah's Flood. Are we then to say that Geology must be pseudoscience because of the religious intentions of its originators?

 

[Roderick Spode]

The writings of R. J. Rushdoony The Institutes of Biblical Law and Frances Schaeffer. A Christian Manifesto will do as starters.

Are these publications being pushed in public classrooms?

No, but it expresses the real intentions of the Discovery Institute

(Editor's Note: The following is also available in tract form from the author. In addition, the author has written a number of other tracts and booklets that will be of interest to parents regarding topics relating to schools and humanism. For further information, readers may contact David Pratte at the address given above.)


In the Humanist Magazine (Jan/Feb, 1983, p. 26), humanist author John Dunphy says:


. . . a viable alternative to [Christianity] must be sought. That alternative is humanism. I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level . . . . The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new . . .. the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism . . . .


That friends, is a declaration of war. Our children are under attack in the classroom day in and day out, yet many parents do not even know the war has begun! When parents do show concern about this danger, about all they hear from educators is denial and ridicule. Despite the denials, consider the evidence that humanism is indeed the predominant philosophy of modern public education.


* The preface to the humanist book Humanist Ethic says:


. . . a large majority of the educators of America and of the western world are humanist in their outlook. The faculties of American colleges and universities are predominantly humanist, and a majority of the teachers who go out from their studies in the colleges to responsibilities in primary and secondary schools are basically humanist, no matter that many maintain a nominal attachment to church or synagogue for good personal or social or practical reasons.

Truth Magazine

www.truthmagazine.com

Do you feel that humanists should be prevented from teaching in public schools?

 

[BCP1928]

Are these publications being pushed in public classrooms?

(Editor's Note: The following is also available in tract form from the author. In addition, the author has written a number of other tracts and booklets that will be of interest to parents regarding topics relating to schools and humanism. For further information, readers may contact David Pratte at the address given above.)


In the Humanist Magazine (Jan/Feb, 1983, p. 26), humanist author John Dunphy says:


. . . a viable alternative to [Christianity] must be sought. That alternative is humanism. I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level . . . . The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new . . .. the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism . . . .


That friends, is a declaration of war. Our children are under attack in the classroom day in and day out, yet many parents do not even know the war has begun! When parents do show concern about this danger, about all they hear from educators is denial and ridicule. Despite the denials, consider the evidence that humanism is indeed the predominant philosophy of modern public education.


* The preface to the humanist book Humanist Ethic says:


. . . a large majority of the educators of America and of the western world are humanist in their outlook. The faculties of American colleges and universities are predominantly humanist, and a majority of the teachers who go out from their studies in the colleges to responsibilities in primary and secondary schools are basically humanist, no matter that many maintain a nominal attachment to church or synagogue for good personal or social or practical reasons.

Truth Magazine

www.truthmagazine.com

Do you feel that humanists should be prevented from teaching in public schools?

IF public education must be secular--as our Constitution requires--then humanism certainly appears to be the best framework for teaching secular subjects in a religiously diverse society.

 

[Roderick Spode]

It is about finding truth in the material world. It's one thing to say that God designed the universe and everything in it. All theists would agree with you. So what? Such an assertion unfalsifiable. All you have done is add "Designer" to the names of God.

On the other hand, ID goes on to claim that the presence of a designer is empirically verifiable, raising some theological issues which cause many Christians (including the Pope, btw) to reject it. Others reject it because, as science it is badly flawed.

First off, the PBS documentary left that comment from the judge out.

The problem is that whatever context one places the comment in, it poses an obvious problem. Would the Constitution trump potential truth? And even, would science trump potential truth?

When he said "ID might be true, but not science", not everyone is going to perceive potential truth as relegated to the material world. It's going to give some folks the impression of suppression. Or, suppressing potential truth that may be of significance.

 

[BCP1928]

First off, the PBS documentary left that comment from the judge out.

The problem is that whatever context one places the comment in, it poses an obvious problem. Would the Constitution trump potential truth? And even, would science trump potential truth?

When he said "ID might be true, but not science", not everyone is going to perceive potential truth as relegated to the material world. It's going to give some folks the impression of suppression. Or, suppressing potential truth that may be of significance.

It would be easier to answer those questions if you had some real science to show. Do you want us to ignore the religious motivations of its adherents and allow ID into science classes because it could potentially become science?

 

[Roderick Spode]

Sure. What about it?

The MindUp program is run by a Buddhist. The problem is that when some judge makes a determination on what is religious and what isn't, it's going to be biased. Buddhism is a religion. Because it's not deemed an offensive religion, at least not the westernized version (i.e., McDharma Buddhism), there are those who are trying to redefine it as a philosophy instead of a religion.

The idea of ID being unconstitutional, which was the original issue, means that if a teacher simply refers to it in any way in a public classroom without any religious reference, it could still potentially influence a student to convert to a religion like Christianity.

When Goldie Hawn pushes meditation in public schools, who's to say a student won't convert to Buddhism after a meditation course? Or that Goldie Hawn doesn't have an agenda to push it?

Even aside from any Buddhist influence, meditation should really only be practiced by an adult making their own decision.

 

[Roderick Spode]

ID claims that the presence of a designer can be empirically verified. If that claim can be substantiated scientifically then it is science, regardless of religious motivations. The systematic study of geology began in the 18th century with investigators, most of them Christians, who wanted to find evidence of Noah's Flood. Are we then to say that Geology must be pseudoscience because of the religious intentions of its originators?

But even if that claim can be substantiated scientifically, it would still violate the Constitution, right?

 

[Roderick Spode]

IF public education must be secular--as our Constitution requires--then humanism certainly appears to be the best framework for teaching secular subjects in a religiously diverse society.

The idea of religious freedom in the public classroom is not just about not pushing any religion, but also not demonizing any religion. The goal of the humanist seems to be a mass de-converting campaign.

 

[BCP1928]

The MindUp program is run by a Buddhist. The problem is that when some judge makes a determination on what is religious and what isn't, it's going to be biased. Buddhism is a religion. Because it's not deemed an offensive religion, at least not the westernized version (i.e., McDharma Buddhism), there are those who are trying to redefine it as a philosophy instead of a religion.

I don't see a problem with it, any more than I would see a problem with a secular program being run by a Christian for that reason.

The idea of ID being unconstitutional, which was the original issue, means that if a teacher simply refers to it in any way in a public classroom without any religious reference, it could still potentially influence a student to convert to a religion like Christianity.

There is nothing about ID which is unconstitutional per se. It could be taught in a class about comparative religions or maybe in an AP science unit about pseudoscience without any problem at all.

When Goldie Hawn pushes meditation in public schools, who's to say a student won't convert to Buddhism after a meditation course? Or that Goldie Hawn doesn't have an agenda to push it?

Or, the student might be moved to convert to some other religion, even Christianity. What about it?

Even aside from any Buddhist influence, meditation should really only be practiced by an adult making their own decision.

According to Buddhists? Or to you? Or to those using quasi-Buddhist meditation practices for secular reasons?

 

[BCP1928]

But even if that claim can be substantiated scientifically, it would still violate the Constitution, right?

Wrong.

 

[BCP1928]

The idea of religious freedom in the public classroom is not just about not pushing any religion, but also not demonizing any religion. The goal of the humanist seems to be a mass de-converting campaign.

To what end? A good deal of humanism seems to parallel Christian values. and not much of a threat to the faith of children being exposed to it.

 

[Larniavc]

If that claim can be substantiated scientifically then it is science, regardless of religious motivations.

It hasn’t.

 

[BCP1928]

It hasn’t.

And it won't be. But it is apparently still being used as an apologetic for the religion it is not supposed to have represented.

 

[sjastro]

A chosen interpretation of the bible that is
as in conflict with reality as Pi=3.0!

Unless others are not true christians


Please note this Is a SCIRNCE thread, not fir
apolgetics and rule violations.

The American public were subject to a terrible April fools joke in 1998.

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — NASA engineers and mathematicians in this high-tech city are stunned and infuriated after the Alabama state legistature narrowly passed a law yesterday redefining pi, a mathematical constant used in the aerospace industry. The bill to change the value of pi to exactly three was introduced without fanfare by Leonard Lee Lawson (R, Crossville), and rapidly gained support after a letter-writing campaign by members of the Solomon Society, a traditional values group. Governor Guy Hunt says he will sign it into law on Wednesday.

 

[Roderick Spode]

It would be easier to answer those questions if you had some real science to show. Do you want us to ignore the religious motivations of its adherents and allow ID into science classes because it could potentially become science?

I myself am not particularly concerned, but I posted this a few posts back. If these physicists who sketched out blueprints of potentially creating a universe in a lab brought them into a public science class, would it be considered intelligent design? If so, might it be condemned for that reason?

Fast-forward a quarter of a century, and the notion of universe-making – or ‘cosmogenesis’ as I dub it – seems less comical than ever. I’ve travelled the world talking to physicists who take the concept seriously, and who have even sketched out rough blueprints for how humanity might one day achieve it. Linde’s referees might have been right to be concerned, but they were asking the wrong questions. The issue is not who might be offended by cosmogenesis, but what would happen if it were truly possible. How would we handle the theological implications? What moral responsibilities would come with fallible humans taking on the role of cosmic creators?

Scientists want to create a universe in a lab, and they actually could

This poses some major philosophical questions.

futurism.com