Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

[Shane Roach]

I did. It all keeps going around in circles... for 30+ screens.

Because you don't address the actual concerns of those who try to communicate with you. And, to be honest, you don't have to since at present you have your way. However, I find it very disingenuous that threads like this pop up asking questions only to ignore the answers and repeat tired platitudes about the situation.

 

[ForsakeAll2FollowJesus]

Christian's have the right to worship in their churches, and teach anything they want to their children. They have complete access to their children, they have private schools by the dozens to teach all sorts of biblical ideas. Why do they want to force their religious ideas into the public relm, and teach their religion to others that may not think the same way?
You get Christmas off without having to arrange time off with your office, like every other religious holiday for every other religion.
You have the freedom to tell your kids all about abstinance. But everybody should have access to condoms to lower the risk of pregnancy or disease.
Christmas gets much more time and recognition than any other religious event. Just because a few folks have balked at letting their tax money support your religious symbols, and want their kids to have a science class instead of a Book of Genesis class, you're saying that's oppression?

The point is many other religions are being taught in schools, while any mention of Christianity is forbidden.

It is not equal. There is tolerance for everything, except Christianity. That is because Christianity is the truth.

Satan, who has great power in this world, is fighting with all his might to keep Christianity subdued, and fill the world with false beliefs so that people will not be saved. But we know that in the end he will lose. We are victorious through the blood of Christ and His resurrection.

 

[nerdypants]

here's one way to look at our current situation; maybe God WANTS his name off our slogans.. maybe he's embarrassed that we participate in abortion, homosexual practices.. he doesnt want his name on all of that! If we say "under God" we claim that we represent him, and as christians we have to either fight for his name, or conform... the other way to look at it is.. how far will we let this go? Are we going to let them take God's name out of the pledge? then what.. are we gonna let them take His name out of our schools, our books, websites, LIVES?! how far will we go? That's the question I have for you all...
How far will we let them take Christ out of our lives?

 

[FlyerBoy]

Why do Christians want creationism taught in public schools? Or "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Or, "In God We Trust" on currency? What purpose do the above serve? How do the above benefit the country?

It doesn't really matter to me what is taught in public schools. But I think having Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance is something that is very important. It can be something for people to understand and also it has been their for along time so it is apart of history now.

Jacob

 

[ZACTAK]

here's one way to look at our current situation; maybe God WANTS his name off our slogans.. maybe he's embarrassed that we participate in abortion, homosexual practices.. he doesnt want his name on all of that! If we say "under God" we claim that we represent him, and as christians we have to either fight for his name, or conform... the other way to look at it is.. how far will we let this go? Are we going to let them take God's name out of the pledge? then what.. are we gonna let them take His name out of our schools, our books, websites, LIVES?! how far will we go? That's the question I have for you all...
How far will we let them take Christ out of our lives?

With the first part of what you had to say, I have to staunchly disagree with. God knows we all sin, no one is perfect, everyone of us sins! He died for our sins so that we would be saved, and we are asked to spread His word to the unbeliever... why would he then be embarassed to have His name on our money, or in our pledge? We DO represent God on this earth, the way we act, the way we talk to others, and so much more. And sorry to say, but if a person has an abortion, or is a practicing homosexual, you yourself are no less a sinner then they, or any more a Christian... we are all equal in God's love for us.

 

[Arikay]

The point is many other religions are being taught in schools, while any mention of Christianity is forbidden.

Can you provide evidence that shows that other religions are being taught in school and that any mention of christianity is forbidden?

I guess high school has changed a lot since I was there.

 

[nerdypants]

With the first part of what you had to say, I have to staunchly disagree with. God knows we all sin, no one is perfect, everyone of us sins! He died for our sins so that we would be saved, and we are asked to spread His word to the unbeliever... why would he then be embarassed to have His name on our money, or in our pledge? We DO represent God on this earth, the way we act, the way we talk to others, and so much more. And sorry to say, but if a person has an abortion, or is a practicing homosexual, you yourself are no less a sinner then they, or any more a Christian... we are all equal in God's love for us.

I didn't say we arnt equal, I am quite fermiliar with the fact that i am just as much a sinner as they, what I'm saying is that God doesn't want his name on our actions... sure he'll forgive us if we go to him.. but we arnt.. are we.. we're rejecting him instead.

 

[Shane Roach]

"Godel had established that there were limits to math and logic. The aim of Gottlob Frege, David Hilbert and Russell to create a unitary deductive system in which all mathematical (and therefore all logical) truth could be deduced from a small number of axioms could not be realized. It was, in its way, and as was hinted at above, a form of mathematical uncertainty principle - and it changed math for all time. Furthermore, as Roger Penrose has pointed out, Godel's 'open ended mathematical intuition is fundamentally incompatible with the existing structure of physics.'"

"Added to the uncertaintly principle, his theory described limits to knowledge. Put alongside all the other advances and new avenues of thought, which were then exploding in all directions, it injected a layer of doubt and pessemism. Why should there be limits to our knowledge? And what did it mean to know that such limits existed?"

-Peter Watson, The Modern Mind, Harper Collins Publisers, 2001.

One thing it should mean is that if people are going to discuss a subject, they should discuss it fully rather than pretending one outlook on it is somehow separate from the general uncertainties of life that appear to be universal to all knowledge.

 

[Shane Roach]

here's one way to look at our current situation; maybe God WANTS his name off our slogans.. maybe he's embarrassed that we participate in abortion, homosexual practices.. he doesnt want his name on all of that! If we say "under God" we claim that we represent him, and as christians we have to either fight for his name, or conform... the other way to look at it is.. how far will we let this go? Are we going to let them take God's name out of the pledge? then what.. are we gonna let them take His name out of our schools, our books, websites, LIVES?! how far will we go? That's the question I have for you all...
How far will we let them take Christ out of our lives?

I don't know, but it seems to me if people continue to stand for Godly values in this country, then that might change. If people stop trying, it won't.

I'd at least like to give it a try.

 

[Arikay]

I would agree with you there. There are certain limits to science, and I doubt we will ever have all knowledge. IMHO public school does a bad job at teaching exactly what science is. It should be further explained what science can and can't tell us. Quite frankly I think if they did a better job, there wouldn't be as much debate about ID in science or evolution or creationism.

"Godel had established that there were limits to math and logic. The aim of Gottlob Frege, David Hilbert and Russell to create a unitary deductive system in which all mathematical (and therefore all logical) truth could be deduced from a small number of axioms could not be realized. It was, in its way, and as was hinted at above, a form of mathematical uncertainty principle - and it changed math for all time. Furthermore, as Roger Penrose has pointed out, Godel's 'open ended mathematical intuition is fundamentally incompatible with the existing structure of physics.'"

"Added to the uncertaintly principle, his theory described limits to knowledge. Put alongside all the other advances and new avenues of thought, which were then exploding in all directions, it injected a layer of doubt and pessemism. Why should there be limits to our knowledge? And what did it mean to know that such limits existed?"

-Peter Watson, The Modern Mind, Harper Collins Publisers, 2001.

One thing it should mean is that if people are going to discuss a subject, they should discuss it fully rather than pretending one outlook on it is somehow separate from the general uncertainties of life that appear to be universal to all knowledge.

 

[Shane Roach]

I would agree with you there. There are certain limits to science, and I doubt we will ever have all knowledge. IMHO public school does a bad job at teaching exactly what science is. It should be further explained what science can and can't tell us. Quite frankly I think if they did a better job, there wouldn't be as much debate about ID in science or evolution or creationism.

That's precisely the point. You continually talk about the limitations of science, but when it comes to actually talking openly about them in the context if this issue you insist that "it's not science."

 

[Arikay]

Thats because certain things are outside the limits of science, thus they aren't science.

That's precisely the point. You continually talk about the limitations of science, but when it comes to actually talking openly about them in the context if this issue you insist that "it's not science."

 

[Shane Roach]

Thats because certain things are outside the limits of science, thus they aren't science.

And yet to discuss that openly, one would have to discuss what sorts of things are not science, why they are not science, and how they compare and contrast to science.

But you're not interested in discussing that in a science class, and then you act mystified as to why I think you're real motives are someting less than genuine on that point.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Creationism: a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals and humans. Many people believe that creationism is not adequate to explain the origins of life. For these people, the idea of an intelligent designer does not seem to make sense.

No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact.


Actually, theory may be giving too much credit...

 

[Electric Sceptic]

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.

Ummm...no. That would be Chrsitians' trick, as you are demonstrating in this thread.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

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....

"Clearly"? Hardly. The vast majority of the world's Xians dismiss creationism and accept evolutionary theory. They accept that the opening chapters of Genesis are metaphorical, not literal. Whether you like it or not, creationism is a fringe belief, even within Xianity.

 

[Arikay]

Not what I said.
Discussing why certain things aren't science does belong in science class. It should be one of the first topics taught. It is the things that aren't science that shouldn't be allowed in science class.

For example,
Last tuesdayism. The class can talk about why last tuesdayism isn't science in their opening to what science is. But when the age of the earth comes around, Last tuesdayism should not be taught, as it is not a scientific alternative.

And yet to discuss that openly, one would have to discuss what sorts of things are not science, why they are not science, and how they compare and contrast to science.

But you're not interested in discussing that in a science class, and then you act mystified as to why I think you're real motives are someting less than genuine on that point.

 

[=-ReveLationz-=]

...the word is infallible... genesis was not metaphorical... evolution is not only wrong but stupid!

 

[xMinionX]

...the word is infallible... genesis was not metaphorical... evolution is not only wrong but stupid!

Oh, good, you can refute the evidence for us then.

Go on.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

...the word is infallible... genesis was not metaphorical... evolution is not only wrong but stupid!

How fortunate that we have people like you - who, I am guessing, is uneducated and unqualified in science - to tell the world's scientists, many of them brilliant, who have studied the matter for decades that what they think is worthy of study is, in fact, "not only wrong but stupid."

It makes me wonder why people bother to spend years getting an education, gaining qualifications, when we have you here to tell us - from your vast knowledge of the subject - that it's "not only wrong but stupid."