Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

Arikay said:

So, if I believe something is true, that means it should be taught in school?

Click to expand...

There is only one truth. Jesus said "I am the Truth".

Again, it does not matter what the whole world believes - if it disagrees with God's word it is not true. It does not matter what I believe. It matters what God's word says.

Arikay said:

I think it's only fair that christians still pay for the large amount of public school that has nothing to do with teaching things they think are false.

Click to expand...

Why?

What are the 20th century additions?

Click to expand...

As I have said before, "Under God" and "In God we Trust" were both added in the last century. Both during peak times of red scare. During those times protest could have gotten you labeled a communist and end your career. They are both relics of an american 'witch hunt' and paranoia.

The first American public school textbooks were Bibles! They taught Creation in the first public schools. How have we fallen so far?

Click to expand...

I'm sure they also taught things like slavery was ok, and only white men should be allowed to vote. How have we fallen so far?

The founding fathers prayed and went to church. They did not want the state to be able to interfere in the church. That was the point, not the other way around.

Click to expand...

So the establishment clause in the first amendment, where it says that the government shall not establish a religion, they really didn't mean that either?
Since then, the courts have expanded on the establishment clause to mean that the government shall not promote one religion over another.
I should point out that at the rate christianity is declining (about 1% a year) in less than 30 years christians may rely on that ruling to prevent the majority religion from making their religion the government preferred one.

Sorry, but this country was founded on GOD. Christians should be able to speak, see and hear His Truth everywhere. Other people can choose who/what they want to worship, but they should not be able to silence us.

Click to expand...

No one wants to "silence" you, just that the government should remain neutral on the matter.

Can you imagine moving to a Moslem country and telling the government they have to take out all their "religious" beliefs because you are offended...... hmmm.

Click to expand...

In some Muslim countries Women are punished for speaking out of turn or for showing their face in public. Do you really want to use a Muslim country as an example of how america should be?
If anything, these countries should provide a warning of what happens when you try and mix religion into government.

America was to be a Christian nation.

Click to expand...

Based on what evidence?
Expanded, based on what evidence do you believe American was to be a theocracy or a democratic theocracy?

We should be allowed to have our beliefs taught to our children and to our country.

Click to expand...

And you can do so. At home.
Tell me, if the majority of america was Wiccan, would you be happy if your children were taught witchcraft in school?
What about Hindu, would you accept a school wide government supported prayer to Krishna each morning before class begins?
Should you be forced to send your child to a private school because the government endorses a religion you don't believe in?
(it is amazing how many times I ask a variation of these questions and how few people actually try to answer them. Most just seem to gloss right over it. It seems like few have ever tried to walk in the others shoes.)

Why?

Click to expand...

Because public school is a lot more than just areas of science certain christians don't agree with. Thus a large amount of public school is not offensive to certain christians.

ForsakeAll2FollowJesus said:

We want to teach creationism because it is the TRUTH. We want "Under God" in the Pledge - to remind us that we ARE under God. He made us and is the King over us. We want "In God we Trust" on currency - to remind us to Trust God not money.

They benefit our country because God blesses those who serve Him. Look at how America rose to be the most powerful country in the world! God is in control of that.

Click to expand...

It is comments like this that sound very much like statements made by other "empires".
Now let's look at some empire who also believed they were blessed somehow:
Greece
Egypt
Rome

Although the above "empires" have now rebuilt, they first had to collapse. Empires, and those countries that feel they are "blessed", are often so busy thinking they are empires and are blessed that they trip over their own two feet, despite having wonderful citizens and solid governments.

What about power? Let's look for a second at what other countries are powerful:
Japan: Rose from the dust of WWII to be industrious, a technological world leader.
Chinda: Huge army, extremely hard-working people. 'nough said.
Canada: A little country with a big heart. Not so powerful as benevolent and helpful, but still.
The UK: The little engine that could.
Germany: A country rising from horror and strife to rebuild and rebuild again.
France: It may be fun off, but its beauty and creative prowess can not be denied.
(The above list is in no way conclusive. There are many great countries...these were the ones I could think of in this moment)



And about America and having "In God We Trust" on America's money: Are the products being bought made in a way that is pleasing to Him? Are the masters of the workers kind, caring? Not so much? What about consuming in general-how much goes into charity, and how much into useless products? Who is truly worshipped-Hollywood or hard-working doctors, nurses, teachers? What about tipping those with hard, yet meneal jobs? Do they get any respect for doing what others do not want to do?

Please, don't take this the wrong way. America IS a great country. But still, it seem sometimes some Americans can too wrapped in, well, America...

thirstforknowledge said:

I'm not even going to address the creation issue anymore, it trully goes nowhere, but I think this statement is quite revealing.

Say a prayer over an intercom... Why would you want to do such a thing? Can you not pray to yourself? Can you not pray to yourselves in small groups? Does prayer over the intercom strengthen it?

Why must you do something in a manner that could offend people when it can be done just as easily and effectively a different manner? It's statements like these that actually make atheists think that prayer in school and public places is an attempt to convert or establish a certain religion.

Click to expand...

In a community where such prayers have been commonplace for two hundred years, when people like you come in and decide to be offended, and political movements say in the open that they are against any religion, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the link between the two.

The first ammendment was designed to protect the free exercise of religion. That means yes, the occasional prayer in public. If a few people choose to be absolutely offended by that, that is something they should be able to deal with agreably.

Arikay said:

Shane:


And those are?

Click to expand...

I have already posted. You can't tell exactly what happened at the moment of creation and even the current theories already hedge by asserting that the laws of physics would not apply at those early stages.

Arikay said:

So far you keep repeating "consciousness and will" but I don't understand your argument about them.

Click to expand...

That is because these are words that already have definitions and the problems could as easily be looked up by you as me. We have discussed them enough for you to remember. You cannot just shrug off the possibility of conscious design and creation.

Arikay said:

So we can be clear, what parts of evolution and the big bang make presuppositions about the existence and nature of God? Please provide a more detailed explanation than "The say God doesn't exist."

Click to expand...

I have posted repeatedly that the assumption is either that God does not exist OR that he only operates in the deistic sense. I have never said they theories themselves say anything.

Arikay said:

Do you mean to say that if you lived in a community that was majority wiccan, and you had a child in school you would support the school body in electing someone to speak for the school and ask the God and Goddess protection over those who play football in a wiccan ritual?

Did you know that the people who brought that prayer case to the courts were Mormon and Catholic?

Click to expand...

Why make it Wiccan. If I were living in a nation, for example like Saudi Arabia, where classes stopped daily for their prayers, so long as they didn't force me to say the prayer I would be happy to let them do so.

Both Judaism and Christianity have long histories of living in peace with other religions that ran the countries they lived in. There should be nothing offensive to anyone in observing the rituals of another religion unless perhaps they involved human sacrifice (which some religions have) or other truly filthy behaviors.

Arikay said:

And that's basically what other religions feel about the government pointing towards the the christian God, that it is a lie.

The best idea for the government is to not sponsor any religion and let it's population decide and pray for itself. I would assume the population is smart enough to be able to worship and trust God without needing the governments slogans.

On a side, I do find it interesting that many people who support these slogans claim to want to go back to what the founding fathers "really" wanted america to be like, but are fine with certain 20th century additions.

Click to expand...

Yes, very interesting that they accept obvious progress but do not smile at being singled out for oppression.

Very interesting.

The lie is the pretense that people praying over an intercom is state supported prayer or any sort of establishment. If coercion were used to force others that would be another matter. That's not where the policy has stopped, however.

Shane Roach said:

In a community where such prayeers have been commonplace for two hundred years, when people like you come in and decide to be offended, and political movements say in the open that they are against any religion, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the link between the two.

The first ammendment was designed to protect the free exercise of religion. That means yes, the occasional prayer in public. If a few people choose to be absolutely offended by that, that is something they should be able to deal with agreably.

Click to expand...

...Wow, and you totally avoided my question.

And also, are these places where public prayer is happening places paid for by the US? If so, we have to give every religion its time to pray in public. This could take forever and is very unrealistic, so we don't do it. See why there is no public prayer? It's all or none, and if its all, it could take a lot of important time away over some stupid issue, so the government has said that if you want to do it in private then go ahead. Why do you have a problem with this? And please, answer my first question while you're at it.

Arikay said:

As I have said before, "Under God" and "In God we Trust" were both added in the last century. Both during peak times of red scare. During those times protest could have gotten you labeled a communist and end your career. They are both relics of an american 'witch hunt' and paranoia.

Click to expand...

Are you speaking of the 'scare' and 'paranoia' regarding a large nation taking up the mantle of Marx, who claimed that religion was 'the opitate of the masses'? Could you possibly be a little less pretentious?

Arikay said:

I'm sure they also taught things like slavery was ok, and only white men should be allowed to vote. How have we fallen so far?

Click to expand...

Big, fat, huge, obvious straw man. But then again, that's more or less the standard mode of operation for atheists on this subject.

Arikay said:

So the establishment clause in the first amendment, where it says that the government shall not establish a religion, they really didn't mean that either?

Click to expand...

People praying on an intercom is not the establishment of a state religion. The state establishing a state religion is the establishment of a state religion. At the time the constitution was written, certain states DID have state religions, so one has to assume either the founders were idiots or they intended the Federal government to be able to tolerate various state religions. It could hardly be plainer if it were painted on my forehead.

Arikay said:

Since then, the courts have expanded on the establishment clause to mean that the government shall not promote one religion over another.
I should point out that at the rate christianity is declining (about 1% a year) in less than 30 years christians may rely on that ruling to prevent the majority religion from making their religion the government preferred one.

Click to expand...

I imagine the very instant they are able, the atheists will change the law to forbid religion altogether, since even as a tiny minority they tend to insist on having their way to begin with. Certainly if the decline in Christianity is accompanied by an increase in Islaam you can expect your precious right to be an atheist to be obliterated utterly, and your smug attitude about Christians may finally take a sleight turn, a little too late.

How about simple tolerance of a majority that has been showing tolerance for minorities? Is that so hard to wrap your head and heart around?

Arikay said:

Based on what evidence?
Expanded, based on what evidence do you believe American was to be a theocracy or a democratic theocracy?

Click to expand...

No one said it was to be a theocracy. See above for the evidence it was to be a Christian nation, or at the very least one where Christians would be able to live and work without prejudice against them.

Arikay said:

Tell me, if the majority of america was Wiccan, would you be happy if your children were taught witchcraft in school?

Click to expand...

YES! But there is no such majority! That's not our history!

Arikay said:

What about Hindu, would you accept a school wide government supported prayer to Krishna each morning before class begins?
Should you be forced to send your child to a private school because the government endorses a religion you don't believe in?

Click to expand...

Sure! But Hindus already HAVE their nation! Why don't you leave that decision to a Hindu nation???

Arikay said:

(it is amazing how many times I ask a variation of these questions and how few people actually try to answer them. Most just seem to gloss right over it. It seems like few have ever tried to walk in the others shoes.)

Click to expand...

They get glossed over, sir, because they are ugly, obvious, redliculous red herring, straw man arguments that get tossed out so often it makes people want to yank their hair out. This nation is NOT Hindu, it is NOT Wiccan, it is NOT Atheistic, it is NOT Muslim. So what is YOUR escuse for marginalizing Christianity?

There's the question that gets ignored.

One thing that I find is that you state that Darwinism is a respected hypothesis and Creationism is not...I DISAGREE! THE BIBLE CLEARLY STATES CREATIONISM AND IS RESPECTED BY MILLIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE. The Bible has been around for longer than the modern biological book. Why do you doubt creationism over darwinism? Darwinism can't be proved and yet you believe....

thirstforknowledge said:

...Wow, and you totally avoided my question.

And also, are these places where public prayer is happening places paid for by the US? If so, we have to give every religion its time to pray in public. This could take forever and is very unrealistic, so we don't do it. See why there is no public prayer? It's all or none, and if its all, it could take a lot of important time away over some stupid issue, so the government has said that if you want to do it in private then go ahead. Why do you have a problem with this? And please, answer my first question while you're at it.

Click to expand...

I don't remember your question, but if it was another version of "what about wiccan prayers" read the reply to Arikay. Otherwise kindly repeat it. Heaven knows I have repeated MY question a hundred times and no one answers it.

I think whatever religions exist in any given community can work these issues you raised out if there is an actual problem.

Shane Roach said:

I don't remember your question, but if it was another version of "what about wiccan prayers" read the reply to Arikay. Otherwise kindly repeat it. Heaven knows I have repeated MY question a hundred times and no one answers it.

I think whatever religions exist in any given community can work these issues you raised out if there is an actual problem.

Click to expand...

My question was

Say a prayer over an intercom... Why would you want to do such a thing? Can you not pray to yourself? Can you not pray to yourselves in small groups? Does prayer over the intercom strengthen it?

Why must you do something in a manner that could offend people when it can be done just as easily and effectively a different manner? It's statements like these that actually make atheists think that prayer in school and public places is an attempt to convert or establish a certain religion.

Click to expand...

And how would this be worked out in a community? You honestly believe, that in a school system that doesn't have enough time to teach as it is, that we should take up more time of the day doing some silly prayer a hundred times by a hundred different religions, when it can be done in their head at any time?

thirstforknowledge said:

My question was



And how would this be worked out in a community? You honestly believe, that in a school system that doesn't have enough time to teach as it is, that we should take up more time of the day doing some silly prayer a hundred times by a hundred different religions, when it can be done in their head at any time?

Click to expand...

I don't see why I have to have some desperate need to do something over an intercom for me to be allowed to do so. If it makes people feel good, they should be allowed to do it without interference from the government unless it represents an infringement of others rights, which it does not.

As for working out the matter locally, I doubt very seriously it would result in anything like what you have hypothesized here.

Repeatedly the 'problem' such as it is tends to be one person with an agenda to bring down the will of the majority under the pretense they have had rights violated, but repeatedly the so called violation is really just that they are being required to tolerate hearing something they don't agree with.

This is the same problem with creation in shool alongside the origin of species and Big Bang. It is nothing to do with it not being 'science'. Science just means a body of knowledge. The scientific method just means a way of discovering things about observable phenomenon. There's nothing about the concept of science that is mutually exclusive with discussing all angles of any given subject.

Shane Roach said:

I don't see why I have to have some desperate need to do something over an intercom for me to be allowed to do so. If it makes people feel good, they should be allowed to do it without interference from the government unless it represents an infringement of others rights, which it does not.

As for working out the matter locally, I doubt very seriously it would result in anything like what you have hypothesized here.

Repeatedly the 'problem' such as it is tends to be one person with an agenda to bring down the will of the majority under the pretense they have had rights violated, but repeatedly the so called violation is really just that they are being required to tolerate hearing something they don't agree with.

This is the same problem with creation in shool alongside the origin of species and Big Bang. It is nothing to do with it not being 'science'. Science just means a body of knowledge. The scientific method just means a way of discovering things about observable phenomenon. There's nothing about the concept of science that is mutually exclusive with discussing all angles of any given subject.

Click to expand...

...And yet, you still have not answered my question for the second time.

My question about why you need to do something over an intercom has nothing to do with the debate. I really would just like to know your motives, but you seem to not be able to tell me.

And most certainly this could become a problem in a community. Why should Jews have to listen to Christians blasphemy their God? Why should Christians listen to satanists blasphemy their God? Why should atheists have to listen to any of it, when it can be done in their own privacy.

And no, there isn't freedom of speech in this country. You may think so, but there isn't. When it come to a government sanctioned... anything, there is no free speech. Try walking into school and going to an intercom, proclaiming that blacks are nothing but evil and vile people.

Or try going into a school and say that Christians are worshipping a false God.

Or try saying anything of the sort in public, where it is a government sponsored event or school, or whatever.

The reason that you do not have the freedom to pray publically at schools or government sponsored things is simple. It's all religions or none, and that is the honest reason why it is not allowed. You may not think that there will be a problem, but there will be. As soon as a Christians gets up and leads a public prayer, there will be someone of another religion standing up and doing the same, demanding the same right. And it will continue until every religion has been appeased. If you think that this amount of time should be given to public displays of religion in government places, then fine. But personally, I don't need a two hour multi religious sermon going on that I need to sit through every day. It's rediculous, and if you can't see that then I'm sorry.

Psa 111:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do [his commandments]: his praise endureth for ever.

Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Pro 9:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding.

I have already posted. You can't tell exactly what happened at the moment of creation and even the current theories already hedge by asserting that the laws of physics would not apply at those early stages.

Click to expand...

This is why I'm not sure you fully understand those theories. Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe at all. The big bang doesn't explain first cause, "the moment of creation." It is not the big bang that asserts the laws of physics break down but the gap between quantum physics and clasical physics. Clasical physics breaks down when you are studying a short enough period of time or high energy.

And you still didn't post an answer.
Soon I'm going to start assuming that you have nothing to back up your statements with.

So, to re-ask my question,
What specific parts of the big bang and evolution can not be tested?

That is because these are words that already have definitions and the problems could as easily be looked up by you as me. We have discussed them enough for you to remember. You cannot just shrug off the possibility of conscious design and creation.

Click to expand...

Wahoo, they have definitions.
Now, can you explain how they make up your argument?

I have posted repeatedly that the assumption is either that God does not exist OR that he only operates in the deistic sense. I have never said they theories themselves say anything.

Click to expand...

And I have posted repeatedly that you are wrong. I even posted more possibilities, but you ignored them to focus on one, God faking evidence. Go back and read what I said again.
Isn't it possible for God to operate in a way that science can't detect?
Isn't it possible God uses the naturalistic things science studies as tools to change his world?

Both Judaism and Christianity have long histories of living in peace with other religions that ran the countries they lived in. There should be nothing offensive to anyone in observing the rituals of another religion unless perhaps they involved human sacrifice (which some religions have) or other truly filthy behaviors.

Click to expand...

Wow, you dodged away from wicca fast.
So, it would be acceptable for you if your childs school had a ritual at each game asking the God and Goddess to watch over all?



Next post:

Are you speaking of the 'scare' and 'paranoia' regarding a large nation taking up the mantle of Marx, who claimed that religion was 'the opitate of the masses'? Could you possibly be a little less pretentious?

Click to expand...

Not quite. I am speaking of the scare and paranoia as a result of people claiming that the communists had infiltrated the government. McCarthy is famous for his witch-hunts. Where to say anything out of line with "american values" ment you could lose your job.

Big, fat, huge, obvious straw man. But then again, that's more or less the standard mode of operation for atheists on this subject.

Click to expand...

It is a strawman how?
He was suggesting that we have fallen from the first public schools. I was pointing out that that isn't always the case. Just because the first public schools taught it, doesn't mean it was right.

People praying on an intercom is not the establishment of a state religion. The state establishing a state religion is the establishment of a state religion. At the time the constitution was written, certain states DID have state religions, so one has to assume either the founders were idiots or they intended the Federal government to be able to tolerate various state religions. It could hardly be plainer if it were painted on my forehead.

Click to expand...

Nope, but it is supporting one religion over another.
Actually the original constitution wasn't ment for states at all but the federal government. No matter what they felt about the state religions, it was beyond the constitution. But since then we have become a much more united states, operating more as one, the constitution has been expanded to the states as well.

I imagine the very instant they are able, the atheists will change the law to forbid religion altogether, since even as a tiny minority they tend to insist on having their way to begin with. Certainly if the decline in Christianity is accompanied by an increase in Islaam you can expect your precious right to be an atheist to be obliterated utterly, and your smug attitude about Christians may finally take a sleight turn, a little too late.

Click to expand...

You completely ignored the part where I mentioned that the prayer case was brought by a Mormon and a Catholic. It's not always the evil atheists that are fighting against the good christians for religious rights.

Yes, how dare the minority insist on having equal rights, evil evil minority.
What was your point anyway, besides scare tactics based on your slanted view?

No one said it was to be a theocracy. See above for the evidence it was to be a Christian nation, or at the very least one where Christians would be able to live and work without prejudice against them.

Click to expand...

And they still can, as long as they don't try to force christianity on others or the government. Just like all other religions. Equal.
Equal as in equal, not equal as in, "all people are equal, but some are more equal than others."

YES! But there is no such majority! That's not our history!
They get glossed over, sir, because they are ugly, obvious, redliculous red herring, straw man arguments that get tossed out so often it makes people want to yank their hair out. This nation is NOT Hindu, it is NOT Wiccan, it is NOT Atheistic, it is NOT Muslim. So what is YOUR escuse for marginalizing Christianity?

Click to expand...

hypothetical.
hypothetical.
I know you know what the word means, can you see it when it comes to you?
As I said, it is amazing how many people can't seem to answer these questions, or understand the idea of a hypothetical question. You ask a question that reverses the shoes and you rarely get an answer, just a lot of ruffled feathers such as above, I wonder why.
Although I give you some credit since you appear to have answered it in the other post.

Arikay said:

This is why I'm not sure you fully understand those theories. Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe at all. The big bang doesn't explain first cause, "the moment of creation." It is not the big bang that asserts the laws of physics break down but the gap between quantum physics and clasical physics. Clasical physics breaks down when you are studying a short enough period of time or high energy.

Click to expand...

Classical physics does not "break down". When t=0 the mathematical model still works. It just fails to give an answer that makes any sense. A lot of people would call this a 'falsification'. I have also posted about the implications of Godel's theorum to the practice of trying to imply such things as you are implying here about the nature of science and what it may or may not be defined as having anything to do with.

Your entire argument rests on the presumption that 'science' as defined by you has nothing to do with consciousness or free will or looking at things that are not totally understood, yet mathematics itself and all life are circumscribed by the limits of knowledge. It is rediculous to refuse to discuss something simply because total knowledge on the subject is not possible.

I am going to take your refusal to address the issues I have raised as an admission that you have none. I am tired of going over simple definitions over and over again with you. You have nothing new to add to my understanding of this issue.

Thanks at least for not waxing rude in the process.

As far as school prayer, it appears the issue boils down to whether or not someone saying a prayer over an intercom represents a violation of the establishment clause, which the fact that states had established state religions at the time of the Constitution's ratification elimnates as a possibility, or whether it ought to be protected as a case of free exercise, which it clearly is.

Facts have never been a big deal for the left to ignore, and I will admit freely that there are religious elements in the far left.

Classical physics does not "break down". When t=0 the mathematical model still works. It just fails to give an answer that makes any sense.

Click to expand...

Which is what quantum physics is for.
and also why the big bang doesn't deal with first cause.
It's pretty simple.

Your entire argument rests on the presumption that 'science' as defined by you has nothing to do with consciousness or free will or looking at things that are not totally understood

Click to expand...

And what does this mean?
I keep trying to get you to expand on this beyond, "consciousness or free will" "consciousness or free will" "consciousness or free will"
But it doesn't seem you will.

How does adding consciousness or free will change science?
How is science not dealing with them?
Can science deal with them or is it a last tuesdayism?

Expand.
Until you expand on it, it's a meaningless argument.

I am going to take your refusal to address the issues I have raised as an admission that you have none.

Click to expand...

What issue?
So far you haven't provided any reason why intelligent design is science. No explanation of where the big bang or evolution can not be tested.
No explanation of how science can go beyond naturalism and still stay useful.
Etc.
It looks like there is no issue to address.

thirstforknowledge said:

My question about why you need to do something over an intercom has nothing to do with the debate. I really would just like to know your motives, but you seem to not be able to tell me.

Click to expand...

Your question did not ask my motives. I answered your question in that I said it is irrelevant. You agree. My motives, and the motives of others who want school prayer, appear to be to be allowed to continue to live in a culture where values are determined by the governed, not the government.

thirstforknowledge said:

The reason that you do not have the freedom to pray publically at schools or government sponsored things is simple. It's all religions or none, and that is the honest reason why it is not allowed. You may not think that there will be a problem, but there will be. As soon as a Christians gets up and leads a public prayer, there will be someone of another religion standing up and doing the same, demanding the same right. And it will continue until every religion has been appeased. If you think that this amount of time should be given to public displays of religion in government places, then fine. But personally, I don't need a two hour multi religious sermon going on that I need to sit through every day. It's rediculous, and if you can't see that then I'm sorry.

Click to expand...

The continual repetition of this falsehood does not make it true. People can make prayers and people who do not agree with them can sit quietly. If a community itself decides to take the route you think appropriate, that is fine. The problem lies in the federal government, or for that matter any level of the government asside from the local, deciding what may or may not be said on locally funded hardware unless someone's civil rights are being violated.

Most of your post seems to be yet another example of a bunch of straw man arguments strung together.