Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
justlookinla
I have been doing some thinking on this and will change the dialog a little and say that I think I can agree with your statement.
Naturalistic mechanisms are solely the impetuses for life as it exists on Earth. I believe that God put these mechanisms in place and ultimately he is the cause of life as it is. God given natural processes are what God uses in his creation.
I also leave open the idea that he can step in and make changes as desired in ways that we cannot detect but that is not part of the discussion since there currently is no emphirical evidence for this.
I think that schools teach only the natural mechanisms for life as they should and leave it open to the individual as to whether to include God which is where that decision should be.
At least in the U.S., if the schools included God in the teaching of science they would be in violation of the Constitution and would have to face expensive lawsuits. So with this and other things in mind, the schools do indeed teach only the natural mechanisms for evolution to explain the diversity of life. Generally, the student doesn't have to agree with it, just know the material presented. There is nothing atheistic or theist in this, just good education policy.
So yes, in my opinion schools teach only or solely the natural processes of evolution. That is where the evidence is and in science class, by law, that is all they are allowed to teach.
To change this either a constitutional amendment to change to nullify or modify the first amendment would be needed which is *very* unlikely or get a Supreme court decision allowing religious causation to be presented in science class. When the other court cases concerning this are considered, this is also not very likely.
Check out these cases
Epperson vs. Arkansas Supreme Court
Edwards vs. Aguillard. Supreme Court
McLean v. Arkansas Federal Court
Kitzmiller v. Dover Federal Court
Every time it has been tried to bring religion into science classes it has been resoundingly defeated in the courts.
So now you have at least one person who agrees that only and solely naturalistic mechanisms for evolution are taught in schools. Why would you expect it to be done differently?
Dizredux
justlookinla
I have been doing some thinking on this and will change the dialog a little and say that I think I can agree with your statement.
Naturalistic mechanisms are solely the impetuses for life as it exists on Earth. I believe that God put these mechanisms in place and ultimately he is the cause of life as it is. God given natural processes are what God uses in his creation.
I also leave open the idea that he can step in and make changes as desired in ways that we cannot detect but that is not part of the discussion since there currently is no emphirical evidence for this.
I think that schools teach only the natural mechanisms for life as they should and leave it open to the individual as to whether to include God which is where that decision should be.
At least in the U.S., if the schools included God in the teaching of science they would be in violation of the Constitution and would have to face expensive lawsuits. So with this and other things in mind, the schools do indeed teach only the natural mechanisms for evolution to explain the diversity of life. Generally, the student doesn't have to agree with it, just know the material presented. There is nothing atheistic or theist in this, just good education policy.
So yes, in my opinion schools teach only or solely the natural processes of evolution. That is where the evidence is and in science class, by law, that is all they are allowed to teach.
To change this either a constitutional amendment to change to nullify or modify the first amendment would be needed which is *very* unlikely or get a Supreme court decision allowing religious causation to be presented in science class. When the other court cases concerning this are considered, this is also not very likely.
Check out these cases
Epperson vs. Arkansas Supreme Court
Edwards vs. Aguillard. Supreme Court
McLean v. Arkansas Federal Court
Kitzmiller v. Dover Federal Court
Every time it has been tried to bring religion into science classes it has been resoundingly defeated in the courts.
So now you have at least one person who agrees that only and solely naturalistic mechanisms for evolution are taught in schools. Why would you expect it to be done differently?
Dizredux
In the Christian school, while they were teaching evolution, to what did they attribute the creation of humanity? Was it by solely naturalistic mechanisms?
justlookinla
<snip>
Check out these cases
Epperson vs. Arkansas Supreme Court
Edwards vs. Aguillard. Supreme Court
McLean v. Arkansas Federal Court
Kitzmiller v. Dover Federal Court
Every time it has been tried to bring religion into science classes it has been resoundingly defeated in the courts.
<snip>
Dizredux
Like I said, god(s) were never mentioned in science class.
And he will insist, as he did with Quatona and Artemis, that you were therefore being implicitly taught atheistic creationism. Never mind that you were in a Christian school. Somehow even Christians are teaching an atheist metaphysic because they only include natural mechanisms in science class.
And he will insist, as he did with Quatona and Artemis, that you were therefore being implicitly taught atheistic creationism. Never mind that you were in a Christian school. Somehow even Christians are teaching an atheist metaphysic because they only include natural mechanisms in science class.
Well, I guess those Christian schools can be named as a defendant in the next court case.
Heh, indeed. I think he realizes how indefensible his position is now. He stated that even Christian schools that only teach natural mechanisms in science class are somehow implicitly teaching an atheist metaphysic, but now he refuses to justify this.
Heh, indeed. I think he realizes how indefensible his position is now. He stated that even Christian schools that only teach natural mechanisms in science class are somehow implicitly teaching an atheist metaphysic, but now he refuses to justify this.
Just complains that no one will agree with his statement. I did some thinking and saw where I could agree.I don't think you've changed the discussion as much as you might imagine, Diz.
Just complains that no one will agree with his statement. I did some thinking and saw where I could agree.
He cannot honestly say any more that no one agrees with his statement and that is really the only change I expect. If he continues, then he is admitting that he is not being honest.
Futile perhaps but worth a try.
Dizredux
I just don't understand why some people are so insistent. They will insist that their version of religion be taught in schools, where in all honesty, it should be taught only in the home, in a religious school, or in church. I don't understand where this need comes from.
So what if schools aren't teaching your god created the universe? Teach it at home, send your kid to whatever version of church you like, tell them yourselves. Why does it have to affect proper schooling?
Futile is probably right. Mere facts like Christians schools teaching evolution the same way as public schools don't convince him that children aren't being taught "atheistic creationism".
Fundamentalists are insistent, because their specific beliefs are challenged when scientific evidence comes into the picture.
So, they have defense mechanisms to protect their own personal specific belief and what we see here, is rather text book.
justlookinla
I have been doing some thinking on this and will change the dialog a little and say that I think I can agree with your statement.
Naturalistic mechanisms are solely the impetuses for life as it exists on Earth. I believe that God put these mechanisms in place and ultimately he is the cause of life as it is. God given natural processes are what God uses in his creation.
I also leave open the idea that he can step in and make changes as desired in ways that we cannot detect but that is not part of the discussion since there currently is no emphirical evidence for this.
I think that schools teach only the natural mechanisms for life as they should and leave it open to the individual as to whether to include God which is where that decision should be.
At least in the U.S., if the schools included God in the teaching of science they would be in violation of the Constitution and would have to face expensive lawsuits.
So with this and other things in mind, the schools do indeed teach only the natural mechanisms for evolution to explain the diversity of life.
Generally, the student doesn't have to agree with it, just know the material presented. There is nothing atheistic or theist in this, just good education policy.
So yes, in my opinion schools teach only or solely the natural processes of evolution. That is where the evidence is and in science class, by law, that is all they are allowed to teach.
To change this either a constitutional amendment to change to nullify or modify the first amendment would be needed which is *very* unlikely or get a Supreme court decision allowing religious causation to be presented in science class. When the other court cases concerning this are considered, this is also not very likely.
Check out these cases
Epperson vs. Arkansas Supreme Court
Edwards vs. Aguillard. Supreme Court
McLean v. Arkansas Federal Court
Kitzmiller v. Dover Federal Court
Every time it has been tried to bring religion into science classes it has been resoundingly defeated in the courts.
So now you have at least one person who agrees that only and solely naturalistic mechanisms for evolution are taught in schools. Why would you expect it to be done differently?
Dizredux
I don't think you've changed the discussion as much as you might imagine, Diz. I and everyone else agrees that only the natural mechanisms are taught. Justlookinla insists that this is the same thing as teaching (at least implicitly) that those natural mechanisms are all there are. He refuses to address the point that both Christian schools and public schools are teaching evolution the same way and, because the former are obviously not espousing an atheistic creationism, it is illogical to conclude that the latter are.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?