Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[lemit]

Pyro,

 

That whirring sound in Quincy, Massachusetts, might be coming from John Adams' grave. I think even Franklin, the poster boy for the concept of atheism among the founders, was a dabbler, attending all churches--even the Satanist ones. If the modern atheist churches had been available then, I'm sure he would have gone there too.

 

Jefferson, in his letters, shows much of the same eclecticism. So does Madison.

 

So does the Constitution. That's why the establishment clause opposes limitations that emanate from government. It doesn't suggest what the people should do, just what the government should not do. That is not a fine distinction in the law. And it should not be a fine distinction in the application of the law by the states.

 

--lemit

[Mr. Kite]

"Keep this religious nonsense out of the public schools"

 

But what if there is scientific proof to support the religious view? Does it still qualify as nonsense to be kept out? What of the major problems with Darwinism/Evolution Theory? I think few would want to keep it out entirely as "nonsense" just because there are major gaps in the evidence for that theory.

[Turtle]

"Keep this religious nonsense out of the public schools"

 

But what if there is scientific proof to support the religious view? Does it still qualify as nonsense to be kept out? What of the major problems with Darwinism/Evolution Theory? I think few would want to keep it out entirely as "nonsense" just because there are major gaps in the evidence for that theory.

 

Good grief. :phones: We have covered this "gaps in theory" and "problems with Darwinism/Evolution" tactic ad nauseum here at Hypography. Please have a look at the index or use the search function. It is de rigueur here to link to a source supporting your position; it's what we do here. :phones:

[Moontanman]

"Keep this religious nonsense out of the public schools"

 

But what if there is scientific proof to support the religious view? Does it still qualify as nonsense to be kept out? What of the major problems with Darwinism/Evolution Theory? I think few would want to keep it out entirely as "nonsense" just because there are major gaps in the evidence for that theory.

 

Do you have or have you ever seen any scientific proof of creationism? There are no major problems with Darwinism/Evolution Theory that I have ever seen, if you know of some then you should post them. Again there are no major gaps in evolution theory and there is no evidence to back up creationism, creationism or ID is not science, has no evidence to back it up and is in short religion, not science and to try and say it is science makes it nonsense.

[Mr. Kite]

It is de rigueur here to link to a source supporting your position; it's what we do here. :phones:

Really. I don't see so much of that. This is the thread re: evolution MUST be taught in schools, and I am replying to that. See drdino See Answers In Genesis. There...you happy?:phones: Dumb thing won't LET me do links yet.

Point being...the argument could be made either way...despite what is said above, Evolution has major problems that are acknowledged even by the scientists and professors who advocate it (I'll have to find you some links on that later...it won't be difficult).

[Mr. Kite]

Do you have or have you ever seen any scientific proof of creationism? There are no major problems with Darwinism/Evolution Theory that I have ever seen, if you know of some then you should post them. Again there are no major gaps in evolution theory and there is no evidence to back up creationism, creationism or ID is not science, has no evidence to back it up and is in short religion, not science and to try and say it is science makes it nonsense.

 

Are you kidding?! :phones: Anyone who has read up on this stuff (including the profs and the scientists who believe it) acknowledge the problems with Evolution. Come on, man. I acknowledge the limitations of creation proof (though I dispute your assertion that there is "no evidence"). Surely you don't really believe what you just wrote. I'm not trying to convert you, but for goodness sake and your own, don't close your eyes to the weaknesses of your own beliefs.

[Moontanman]

Well Mr. Kite, I suggest you look into the forum for threads relating to creationism and or evolution. You'll find that we have indeed hashed out this many many times and guess what? Creationism has nothing to stand on but the bible which is not evidence of any thing but bronze age myths. No credible scientist has "major" problems with evolution nor do real scientists support creationism. Again I suggest you visit some of the forum threads pertaining to this.

[Moontanman]

Are you kidding?! :phones: Anyone who has read up on this stuff (including the profs and the scientists who believe it) acknowledge the problems with Evolution. Come on, man. I acknowledge the limitations of creation proof (though I dispute your assertion that there is "no evidence"). Surely you don't really believe what you just wrote. I'm not trying to convert you, but for goodness sake and your own, don't close your eyes to the weaknesses of your own beliefs.

 

As soon as you get the ability to post links I look forward to showing you the "light"

[freeztar]

Really. I don't see so much of that.

 

In that case, I encourage you to look at the multitude of threads spread across Hypography.

I also urge you to review the site rules if you have not already done so. Turtle is correct that it is a site requirement to provide relevant support for your arguments. This is good practice in any post, but it is especially required when asked for.

 

This is the thread re: evolution MUST be taught in schools, and I am replying to that. See drdino See Answers In Genesis. There...you happy?:phones:

 

I doubt that makes Turtle happy, much the same as it does not satisfy me.

You must explain why your references are relevant to the subject. Providing a short quote from the material is preferrable.

 

Dumb thing won't LET me do links yet.

 

Well, that "Dumb thing" is actually a brilliant solution to a lot of typical spam problems. :shrug:

After 10 posts, you will be able to post links regularly. In the meantime, you are still allowed to write out the URL. If the link is not spam, myself, or another moderator will edit your post to show the correct link. :phones:

 

Point being...the argument could be made either way...despite what is said above, Evolution has major problems that are acknowledged even by the scientists and professors who advocate it (I'll have to find you some links on that later...it won't be difficult).

 

I await your links.

There is massive amounts of data supporting evolutionary theory. I think you will be hard pressed to find even one legitimate scientist that opposes the theory, despite what you claim.

[Mr. Kite]

1. I went back several pages and read the postings, which seemed more discussion than anything else, with occasional links. Having said that, I will post specific links in future posts, though at this point the discussion is kind of general.

2. You are listed as a "moderator". Though not, I gather, an unbiased one. Who gets to decide which scientists are "legitimate". And do you accept the previous statement that there are no problems whatsoever with the theory of evolution. THAT is my point in this thread...if you want to teach it to the students, should we not be sure what we are teaching is supportable and correct? And is there no room for dispute of the supposed facts?

[InfiniteNow]

First, evolution is the most solid and well supported scientific theory out there. The consensus is that it is the most accurate and profound scientific idea out there. The only "debates" are over mechanisms regarding specific changes (does this microstrand cross with that microstrand by mechanism x or mechanism y...) that sort of thing, but the theory itself is as solid as they come and firmly accepted by scientists in all fields.

 

 

As for the founding fathers issue, pull your fingers from your ears, open your eyes, and try to be the open mindedness you're likely to soon request from the rest of us.

 

 

Dispatches from the Culture Wars: The Definition of Theistic Rationalism

Since all of the religions with which they were familiar promoted morality, they held that virtually all religions were more or less equally valid and led to the same God who is called by many names. Theistic rationalists generally disdained doctrines or dogmas. They found them to be divisive, speculative, and ultimately unimportant since many roads lead to God.

 

This is an excellent description of the views of the leading founders - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin. In a new paper, Frazer argues that Gouverneur Morris, one of the most unjustly ignored of the founding fathers, also fits that description.

 

The problem here is that most people have attempted to fit the founders into one of two categories, Christian or deist. But as Frazer notes, deism in that day and age was much more hostile toward Christianity than these men were:

 

(Page 1 of 30) - Gouverneur Morris, Theistic Rationalist authored by Frazer, Gregg.

In addition, deism was in many ways as much a critique of Christianity as a religion of its own. Deist thought rejected virtually every tenet and fundamental of Christianity and deists were generally critical of Christianity's central figure: Jesus. In short, deists wanted nothing to do with Christianity or its Christ. While theistic rationalists shared some ideas with deists, they had a much greater regard for Christianity and for Jesus than did most deists.

Thus we could have Thomas Jefferson reject the notion that Jesus was anything but a mere human being while simultaneously embracing the ethical system of Jesus as the most perfect and sublime ever invented. And thus many of these men could talk of the many corruptions and lies in orthodox Christianity while simultaneously praising other aspects of that religion and believing that it was generally a good thing because it made people more moral.

 

 

The Christian Nation Myth

The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.

 

These beliefs were forcefully articulated by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason, a book that so outraged his contemporaries that he died rejected and despised by the nation that had once revered him as "the father of the American Revolution." To this day, many mistakenly consider him an atheist, even though he was an out spoken defender of the Deistic view of God. Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.

 

Fundamentalist Christians are currently working overtime to convince the American public that the founding fathers intended to establish this country on "biblical principles," but history simply does not support their view. The men mentioned above and others who were instrumental in the founding of our nation were in no sense Bible-believing Christians. Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was fiercely anti-cleric.

 

 

...and here...

 

The Founding Fathers' Religious Wisdom

In recent years, we have been told by a variety of conservatives that America’s founding fathers established the country under Christian doctrine—that we are a “Christian nation” and should operate accordingly.

 

This notion—that our country’s roots are explicitly Christian—is both foolish and wrong, for it devalues the Christian faith and disrespects the genius of the founding fathers.

<...>

The genius of the founding fathers is they understood that Christianity could not only stand on its own but would thrive without being written into the laws and founding documents of the country. In fact, it was likely their own “faith” that led them to this conclusion. Many of the founding fathers—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Monroe—practiced a faith called Deism. Deism is a philosophical belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems. Deists believe in a supreme being who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws—and after creation, is absent from the world. This belief in reason over dogma helped guide the founders toward a system of government that respected faiths like Christianity, while purposely isolating both from encroaching on one another so as not to dilute the overall purpose and objectives of either.

 

If the founders were dogmatic about anything, it was the belief that a person’s faith should not be intruded upon by government and that religious doctrine should not be written into governance.

 

 

This site below, while much more forceful and not as objective about the approach, makes the case quite plainly, sharing numerous quotes from these thinkers which leave no doubt as to their religious leanings. He ends his article (which I strongly advice you review for yourself) with the comment:

 

Religion and the Founding Fathers

With just these examples, you have the facts necessary to rebut any fundamentalist who proclaim this to be a Christian nation "just as the founding fathers desired

".

 

 

Even wiki has a link: Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

I think it's fair to say that we all can at this point recognize which arguments are well supported, accurate, and based on fact... and which are based on wish thinking, ignorance, and misinformation alone. Enjoy. :phones:

[Mr. Kite]

Based upon my earlier posts, you may think I'm in favor of teaching Creationism in public schools. Here are the reasons I'm NOT:

 

1) There can be little doubt that the Founding Fathers were religious (in their ways), and most of them were at least nominally "Christian" religious. However, I think it is clear that they did NOT want the Government nor its agencies (public schools for example) ramming a specific religion down our throats-See Amendment One of the US Constitution at archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html (put www before that - yeah, it still won't let me do a link)

2) What do we do with the Hindu child or Native American child, etc. who is sitting in class being taught about the Jewish/Christian beliefs about the "beginning"?

3) An evolutionist teacher is not going to do justice to teaching as science something he/she believes is a fairy tale, so why bother forcing the issue?

4) What was once accepted as fact is now believed by some to be religious myth, and to fall solely in the realm of religion, rather than science. This naturally (if regretfully for some) takes it out of the science classroom once and for all.

If someone wants their children to learn what they believe is the Truth, they need to do that at home and in their church.

Now, don't get me wrong...I think you guys are all wrong on the evolution/creation thing and you're probably going straight to He** in a handbasket,:phones: but I think the above is probably the correct way to go under our laws and government.

[Galapagos]

if you want to teach it to the students, should we not be sure what we are teaching is supportable and correct? And is there no room for dispute of the supposed facts?

 

You're kind of late coming in. The biological community has been in consensus about the fact of evolution -that populations change over time and that all life has descended from common ancestry- for over a century. Biologists have not for quite some time seriously disputed whether or not evolution happened, but rather how it happened; the theory of evolution.

Today, the theory is still hotly disputed in scientific journals. Questions like 'how is this population evolving', 'how do populations evolve in general and how can changing genes be modeled over generations', or 'how did such and such specific population or lineage of organisms evolve over time', but whether or not evolution happens is just a matter of science fact at this point.

 

You might do well to read the 'evolution as theory and fact' page on wikipedia, as it is a good summary of the issues at hand:

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Edit*******

It just occurred to me that you are obviously not familiar with the evidence for evolution at all, so you can't really be expected to make a competent assessment at this point anyway.

Talkorigins hosts many papers reviewed and written by working evolutionary biologists, and this page is a large compilation of the evidence for common descent:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

I believe that the evidence presented on that page is much more than enough to convince any reasonable person that evolution is a science fact explained by a body of valid scientific theories.

 

Additionally, you may want to check out the wiki page on 'evidence for common descent':

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mr. Kite]

Galapagos, in spite of the implicit insult in your post, I will be happy to read the information you suggest so that I have a good grasp of your particular "religion". However, having studied the "lay" literature from both sides, I know it takes a lot of faith on the part of evolution believers to keep their theory afloat. Keep in mind your beliefs are based upon no actual proof but only interpretation of the evidence...which is skewed by one's underlying beliefs. See the "Get Answers" section of Answers In Genesis website. See also the textbook In the Beginning[u[/u] by Walt Brown, Ph.D. These sources will help you understand why there is proof of the global flood...it's all around you. Nonetheless, see my earlier post regarding the actual teaching of Creationism in schools.

[InfiniteNow]

Anyone care to change their original vote? :rolleyes:

[Mr. Kite]

I know EXACTLY what you mean, InfiniteNow. I keep trying to get back to the actual/original topic here, but keep getting led off the path to the "What is the Truth" topic. I assume that's what you meant anyway, huh?

[InfiniteNow]

I know EXACTLY what you mean, InfiniteNow.

 

No, actually... Pretty sure you don't. I encourage you to keep trying to figure it out, though. :rolleyes: