YEC is physically impossible

[Roderick Spode]

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.

I know that you don't have a problem with it. But there were parents who did. The MindUp program is not any less religious than ID.

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.

It only violates (according to court decision) the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and Article 1, Section 3, of the Pennsylvania State Constitution.

But to run with what you said, better yet, how about a Philosophy class?

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

I'm sorry. How is a class teaching meditation run by Buddhists going to cause anyone to convert to Christianity?

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

It's my opinion. But there's many Psychology sources addressing the negative side pf meditation.

Unwanted effects: Is there a negative side of meditation? A multicentre survey - PMC

Despite the long-term use and evidence-based efficacy of meditation and mindfulness-based interventions, there is still a lack of data about the possible unwanted effects (UEs) of these practices. The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Roderick Spode]

Wrong.

Do you think maybe you could elaborate just a bit more on this?

 

[Roderick Spode]

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.

First Amendment​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Basically, it's not a popularity contest.

 

[BCP1928]

Do you think maybe you could elaborate just a bit more on this?

If it's science, then it is Constitutional. If science finds verifiable evidence of an intelligent designer then that's what they find. Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic Priest, came up with an origins theory that had definite religious implications. It was controversial but when it was empirically confirmed, it was science--religious implications or no.

 

[BCP1928]

I know that you don't have a problem with it. But there were parents who did. The MindUp program is not any less religious than ID.

It only violates (according to court decision) the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and Article 1, Section 3, of the Pennsylvania State Constitution.

Only when taught to advance the cause of a sectarian religion or as science, which it is not. You can teach about it all you want. Just like you can teach about any other religion, including Christianity.

But to run with what you said, better yet, how about a Philosophy class?

Nothing wrong with that, either although such a discussion would generally be too advanced for all but a few high school students.

I'm sorry. How is a class teaching meditation run by Buddhists going to cause anyone to convert to Christianity?

It won't cause it--that part's up to you--but my point was it would not necessarily impede it, either. Christian mystics meditate and apparently find it useful.

It's my opinion. But there's many Psychology sources addressing the negative side pf meditation.

Unwanted effects: Is there a negative side of meditation? A multicentre survey - PMC

Despite the long-term use and evidence-based efficacy of meditation and mindfulness-based interventions, there is still a lack of data about the possible unwanted effects (UEs) of these practices. The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

No doubt. Looks like it should be done with training and knowledgeable supervision.

 

[Astrid]

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

Jokes only work if they are believable.

 

[Astrid]

The explanation is I'm not infallible?

That bit of weirdness is all you've gotten out of
my careful explaining that there was no flood?

 

[sjastro]

Jokes only work if they are believable.

Are you aware there was an attempt in Indiana to change the value of π to 3.2 in 1897 which made the joke believable.

Indiana pi bill - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

π is very important in the West and has its own day for celebration.

​

Unfortunately the date backfires as in Australia, UK and most of Europe the format is 14/3 not 3/14.

 

[sesquiterpene]

The smoking gun evidence is supposed to be the removal of the word creationism being replaced by the term intelligent design. If this is smoking gun evidence that's a big problem because the word creationism includes biblical creationism, but not it's sole definition. It's actually simply the original word for Intelligent Design. It's true that the word creationism is often used for biblical creationism. Probably for convenience. But other than that the accusers are merely attempting to dictate what the author meant when using the word creationism.

Are you seriously saying that the famous biblical creationist authors (such as Dean Kenyon) of Of Pandas and People were referring to something other than biblical creation when they used the term "creationists", which they only changed to "design proponents" after the teaching of creationism in public schools was ruled unconstitutional in Edwards v. Aguilard by the US Supreme Court? That's just laughable, and that particular part of the ID scam was so transparently ludicrous that the judge in the Dover decision had no problem ruling against it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

Of course it didn't -- THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT of "Of Pandas and People" -- To hide their intent and source material under the guise of "science".

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.

[stuff snipped because the plot is lost. I'm not sure what it was replying to without digging backward on other pages.]

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 itself isn't unconstitutional. Teaching it as science in a public school is because it is religion which has no place being taught in a public school.

 

[Halbhh]

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

That was a pretty good joke in my opinion, as legislatures can go looney toons a lot we've seen lately.

Re the urban myth that "the bible says pi is 3" that I've seen some repeat on the internet with credulity (as if they had found a magic elixir), I wonder if we should burst their bubble though?....

(edit: of course I should be more sympathetic to someone caught up in that kind of thinking (that a ratio of 3 instead of 3.1 or 3.14 even matters the slightest to begin with....as I was just recalling (that it doesn't matter to most of us) in another post from someone's comment to me: post #513 which has both some obvious aspects (that a ratio of 3 being less precise is of no importance 95% of us, as most people will have just common sense this is a bowl and the measurements are using rounded stylistic numbers, this is not a rocket design.... heh),

But why I'm mentioning this is a less obvious aspect that is more important for me or you to do: that we should not beat someone up (I don't need to 'burst their bubble' cruelly) for their poor thinking, but attempt (if I can) to help them think better with a more friendly post....lol...that's not always possible (to succeed), and perhaps rarely, but I can try....)

Biblical answer to cooking up pi - Nature

www.nature.com

 

[AV1611VET]

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

You call that "terrible"?

Phuh -- kid stuff.

Try this joke:

War of the Worlds

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you aware there was an attempt in Indiana to change the value of π to 3.2 in 1897 which made the joke believable.

Are you aware that academia's attempt to introduce decimal time helped spark the French Revolution?

 

[BCP1928]

That was a pretty good joke in my opinion, as legislatures can go looney toons a lot we've seen lately.

Re the urban myth that "the bible says pi is 3" that I've seen some repeat on the internet with credulity (as if they had found a magic elixir), I wonder if we should burst their bubble though?....

Biblical answer to cooking up pi - Nature

www.nature.com

No, it does equal three. The measurement was from rim to rim and with a line around the outside of the rim. The diameter of the inside of the bowl doesn't come into it. But it doesn't matter, The kind of account that it is would not be expected to express precice measurements, anyway.

The joke is on the creationists, who scramble for some kind of an explanation for something which doesn't need explaining

 

[Astrid]

No, it does equal three. The measurement was from rim to rim and with a line around the outside of the rim. The diameter of the inside of the bowl doesn't come into it. But it doesn't matter, The kind of account that it is would not be expected to express precice measurements, anyway.

The joke is on the creationists, who scramble for some kind of an explanation for something which doesn't need explaining

The actual point is that theres no posdibility
that the numbers are accurate.

Meaning there is clear and obvious inaccuracy in the
perfect book.

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm back... Don't worry, I know you missed me, etc.

The Bible can be literally true if there were two races/species of human, one specially created around 4-6000 B.C., and one that just came about naturally through nature, or natural processes, etc.

The Bible can also be literally true if the flood was regional, etc.

The Bible can also be literally true if in the creation account, each day represents a very long period of time for each day, and the whole 7 days represents and entire existences time each time, and that we've been on day 6 already for a very, very long time, ever since the first appearance of land animals many millions of years ago now, etc, and day 7 only starts when Jesus comes back after Armageddon and takes over from God the Spirit and sets up a Kingdom here on earth that will also last a very, very long time, etc, until the end of this entire existences age actually, when will be the very final judgement/act of God when all will be judged/divided/sorted out one very final time before this entire existences closing, and after that, the start of a whole new one on day one again, but with some going to heaven where the Father dwells/always has dwelt at that time, but some only repeating their existences here again when their number comes up again after being judged and having their minds and memories completely wiped, etc, with God the Spirit finally getting His day of rest before the very, very end of all this existence on or during Jesus 7th day, etc.

God Bless.

 

[partinobodycular]

The Bible can be literally true if there were two races/species of human, one specially created around 4-6000 B.C., and one that just came about naturally through nature, or natural processes, etc.

The Bible can also be literally true if the flood was regional, etc.

The Bible can also be literally true if in the creation account, each day represents a very long period of time for each day, and the whole 7 days represents and entire existences time each time, and that we've been on day 6 already for a very, very long time, ever since the first appearance of land animals many millions of years ago now, etc, and day 7 only starts when Jesus comes back after Armageddon

In which case you and I have a very different understanding of the word 'literal'.

 

[Neogaia777]

In which case you and I have a very different understanding of the word 'literal'.

What's your definition of it?

Would "actually" work for you?

These definitions of terms, and having to constantly change them to fit your guys understanding, is quite frustrating, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Ophiolite]

In which case you and I have a very different understanding of the word 'literal'.

I think it literally depends upon if, when you say literal, you literally mean literal in a literal sense or are literally speaking in a literal non-literal sense.

I hope that helps.

 

[Roderick Spode]

If it's science, then it is Constitutional. If science finds verifiable evidence of an intelligent designer then that's what they find. Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic Priest, came up with an origins theory that had definite religious implications. It was controversial but when it was empirically confirmed, it was science--religious implications or no.

Except that Belgium doesn't have separation of church and state.

So something with religious implications was confirmed to be science?