Bachman: not teaching creationism is censorship

[R.A.F.]

...the first amendment forbids the federal government from restricting the free exercise of religion and that includes in science and schools.

What a load of crap. so what other things are you "confused" about??

 

[12AX7]

I might disagree with them, but that wouldn't change my view of the 1st amendment. Unlike many secularists and liberals, some actually have principles they abide by even if the result is not the goal they want.

Wait.

So you are saying that if my hypothetical were in play tomorrow, you would dress up your 8 year old daughter in her new burqa and simply say to her "Sorry sweetheart, but I agree with the 1st Amendment, and since the school board has jurisdiction over matters like this, we have to abide by them." and send her off on her way to her new Islamic school?

Really?

Really?

 

[R.A.F.]

...religious ideas per se are guaranteed equal status...

Well, then...when religious ideas can withstand the scrunity just the same as scientific ideas, then they can get a fair hearing...

Problem is, as has been mentioned, religious ideas simply are not scientific.


Hey, if you don't mind your child being a "laughing stock" in college, then by all means, allow your child to become "stupid".

But if you try that crap with my child, there will be trouble.

 

[gnome]

There is nothing in the free exercise clause that keeps government from interfering with ITSELF to prevent the introduction of teaching religious propositions as fact in the schools it runs.

This is no restraint whatsoever on the free exercise of people to teach children religion outside of government run institutions.

Another point--since there are so many readily available places to teach one's religion completely freely to children, why the urge to bring that into places like public schools which are not organized around people being of similar religion?

To me, the unspoken answer is that people want the opportunity to indirectly preach at a captive audience of other kids that are not in their congregation.

 

[Mark R]

Dinwar, the first amendment forbids the federal government from restricting the free exercise of religion and that includes in science and schools. One day the court decisions will be overturned because they conflict with the first amendment.

So I am guessing you stopped at the Free Exercise Clause and never made it to the Establishment Clause, which is kind of funny because it comes first.

Perhaps you should actually look at the First Amendment you cite so much but do not seem to actually know:

"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."

You cannot advocate for one part of the First Amendment and blatantly disregard another part, which is what you are doing.

 

[R.A.F.]

...the unspoken answer is that people want the opportunity to indirectly preach at a captive audience of other kids that are not in their congregation.

Exactly...and truth be known, they really don't want creationism scrutinized by science classes since it would show how unscientific creationism is.


Personal opinion...I wouldn't mind creationism being taught as long as it was done rationally, which kinda defeats the "purpose".

...and I would also institute a STIFF tax on churches that want to teach "in schools"...but that will never happen because there is no way they would "part" with their "free" money...

 

[12AX7]

...and I would also institute a STIFF tax on churches that want to teach "in schools"...but that will never happen because there is no way they would "part" with their "free" money...

This.

When churches start paying taxes, they can start attempting to have a say in what is taught in a taxpayer-funded schools.

 

[GeeMack]

Actually Intelligent Design is not specific to any religion whatsoever. So your argument fails. But even if a school district wants to teach creationism, so what?

They have the right to do so.

Creationism is not science. It would be just as stupid to teach it in science class as it would be to teach it in French class, geometry class, or auto shop.

 

[R.A.F.]

This.

When churches start paying taxes, they can start attempting to have a say in what is taught in a taxpayer-funded schools.

Exactly...well stated.



eta...slight "nitpick" I posted what you quoted, not randman

 

[Dinwar]

Well, then...when religious ideas can withstand the scrunity just the same as scientific ideas, then they can get a fair hearing...

This is an extremely good point. Creationists and IDers always say they want their views respected--then go about re-defining "respect" as it applies to their pet ideas and nothing else.

Science, again, has rules. However, like any activity, not all of them are written. One of the unwritten rules is "Peer review is harsh." Every scientific idea--every single one--goes through a rather grueling series of tests. A lot of very good ideas don't make it because frankly, they're not good enough. When we review papers we are VICIOUS--and rightly so. Scientists are, ideally, loyal to nothing but the truth, with will withstand even the most harrowing trials.

Ask any scientist here what happens when a paper goes in to peer review. Ask any one of us what comments you get back. And that's for ideas that are well-supported, where the data are well documented, and often where neither the data nor the conclusions are disputed!

Ripping your idea to shreds and pawing through the corpse for loose change is what science does. Tearing your argument apart and exposing every possible way you're wrong IS respect in science. It means that the idea is worth wasting our time on.

If Creationism and ID want to play at being scientific, let them enter into the realm of science--which is not the classroom, but the journals and meetings. Creationism did that once. It got spanked so hard it still can't sit down. And that was well before Darwin, so it wasn't evolution that did it. Trying to sneak in the back door like Creationism is doing is cowardly, and really reveals how little the idea has to offer.

Personal opinion...I wouldn't mind creationism being taught as long as it was done rationally, which kinda defeats the "purpose".

As I said, Creationism IS taught rationally. It was a valid hypothesis 300 years ago, and the story of how it was disproven is a very interesting and informative one. 300 years ago Creationism actually challenged science, and the whole concept of modern biological thought can be seen as a response to those early debates. At the very least it shows the actual process of science, much better than the"Scientific Method" generally presented in textbooks (not that the method isn't valid--but it's certainly not the only way science is done, and is highly idealized). The sad thing is, once you learn the arguments that disproved Creationism 300 years go, you realize there hasn't really been anything new in Creationism in three centuries. Imagine how much we've learned in 300 years about biology.

I would very much like to see Creationism and ID taught in public schools, as part of a comparative religion class. Getting a good overview of the differences in religions and their histories I think would be of great benefit to all people, especially in their formative years.

If we could boos history to the point where this wouldn't sacrifice more important subjects, I could agree. Or if it's taught as an elective. The thing is, they're worthless footnotes in history, and their major contributions have been the waste of an inordinate amount of time and money.

 

[Visual Purple]

Randman, since you like the decision that the 2nd amendment applies to the individual states, you must like the 14th amendment's incorporation clause. Without the incorporation clause, the 2nd amendment would only prevent the federal government from infringing your right to bear arms. The states (and their creatures, counties and municipalities) could infringe away.

The incorporation clause also makes the 1st amendment apply to the states. The 1st amendment has several clauses, one of which is called the establishment clause. It says that congress may not establish an official religion. The courts have, for many years now, universally held that the incorporation clause of the 14th amendment applies to the establishment clause. This means that the states, counties and municipalities--every subdivision of states, which includes schoolboards--is also forbidden to establish a religion.

Establishing a religion means specifically favoring it. In order to enforce the establishment clause, courts have to be able to decide what is and isn't religion. They have allowed "ceremonial deism" like the Congressional chaplain (in the process calling such things meaningless), but have not allowed the favoring of specific doctrines.

What happened at the famous Dover trial was that ID opponents met their burden of proof to show that ID was a deliberate attempt to conceal Biblical creationism under a scientific disguise. ID is a specifically Judeo-Christian doctrine. Islamic creationism is similar, because it shares the same roots, but the creation mythologies of other religions vary much more.

The critical point, though, is that the existence of the establishment clause actually forces courts to decide what's religion and what isn't.

(Off to bed, then work, so this is a post and run.)

 

[LSSBB]

Actually Intelligent Design is not specific to any religion whatsoever. So your argument fails. But even if a school district wants to teach creationism, so what?

They have the right to do so.

Please, no intellectual dishonesty here. Intelligent Design is Creationism. Its proponents are religious, its financial backers are religiously tied, and its premise of an intelligent creator is thinly obscured religion.

 

[Mister Earl]

Please, no intellectual dishonesty here. Intelligent Design is Creationism. Its proponents are religious, its financial backers are religiously tied, and its premise of an intelligent creator is thinly obscured religion.

Not to mention the existence of the wedge document makes it the most documented lie in recent history. Gotta love it when the religious folks are the ones bearing the most false witness.

 

[Dinwar]

Gotta love it when the religious folks are the ones bearing the most false witness.

Wait, isn't that all the time?

 

[Subduction Zone]

randman, there is no problem with teaching creationism or ID in schools. All they have to do is the same thing that evolution did. The people supporting these ideas have to go through the process.

First they have to develop a working hypothesis. Next they must find some way to test this hypothesis. That includes a test for falsifiability. Next they must show that it passes these tests. Meanwhile all of these steps have to go through peer review, and that does not mean using your friends who will happily nod their heads at any sort of creationist nonsense. Peer review means you have to get past people who would like to see your theory debunked. And publication is part of the peer review process, so that people who did not get a chance in the original peer review get a shot then.

If you pass all of these steps you could teach creationism or ID in schools. The problem is that cretinists and IDiots want to skip all of these steps since they know they cannot get past them.

 

[mutile]

do they not have spam filters in America?

 

[randman]

randman, there is no problem with teaching creationism or ID in schools. All they have to do is the same thing that evolution did. The people supporting these ideas have to go through the process.

First they have to develop a working hypothesis. Next they must find some way to test this hypothesis. That includes a test for falsifiability. Next they must show that it passes these tests. Meanwhile all of these steps have to go through peer review, and that does not mean using your friends who will happily nod their heads at any sort of creationist nonsense. Peer review means you have to get past people who would like to see your theory debunked. And publication is part of the peer review process, so that people who did not get a chance in the original peer review get a shot then.

If you pass all of these steps you could teach creationism or ID in schools. The problem is that cretinists and IDiots want to skip all of these steps since they know they cannot get past them.

Except that's not the process evolution went through. Evolutionary texbooks just parroted a lot of stuff like Haeckel's drawings that were not true and there wasn't a strong peer-review process that vetted evo theory, and it's still not really been vetted because the evolutionist community is very hostile to any criticism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except that's not the process evolution went through. Evolutionary texbooks just parroted a lot of stuff like Haeckel's drawings that were not true and there wasn't a strong peer-review process that vetted evo theory, and it's still not really been vetted because the evolutionist community is very hostile to any criticism.

What!? Pull the other one, its got bells on. By the time that evolution was taught in public schools it had gone through this process many times over. And though Haeckel faked a couple of his drawings it does not mean he was wrong. In fact they tend to show his points with photographs of actual fetuses today instead of sketches. The "evolutionist community" is very open to the peer review process, it happens all of the time. You would think that after 150 plus years if the creationist side had any valid points they would have made them by now.

And I don't see you even trying to get creationists to go through the process. In other words, it is too daunting of a task for you. And it is also why you can't teach creationism in school, you want to teach it as a religion, not as a science.

 

[randman]

Randman, since you like the decision that the 2nd amendment applies to the individual states, you must like the 14th amendment's incorporation clause. Without the incorporation clause, the 2nd amendment would only prevent the federal government from infringing your right to bear arms. The states (and their creatures, counties and municipalities) could infringe away.

The incorporation clause also makes the 1st amendment apply to the states. The 1st amendment has several clauses, one of which is called the establishment clause. It says that congress may not establish an official religion. The courts have, for many years now, universally held that the incorporation clause of the 14th amendment applies to the establishment clause. This means that the states, counties and municipalities--every subdivision of states, which includes schoolboards--is also forbidden to establish a religion.

Establishing a religion means specifically favoring it. In order to enforce the establishment clause, courts have to be able to decide what is and isn't religion. They have allowed "ceremonial deism" like the Congressional chaplain (in the process calling such things meaningless), but have not allowed the favoring of specific doctrines.

What happened at the famous Dover trial was that ID opponents met their burden of proof to show that ID was a deliberate attempt to conceal Biblical creationism under a scientific disguise. ID is a specifically Judeo-Christian doctrine. Islamic creationism is similar, because it shares the same roots, but the creation mythologies of other religions vary much more.

The critical point, though, is that the existence of the establishment clause actually forces courts to decide what's religion and what isn't.

(Off to bed, then work, so this is a post and run.)

Few items. First the establishment clause must be read alongside with and supporting the free exercise clause. Second, the Christian chaplain opening up each legislative session with prayer is hardly ceremonial deism. In fact, one could argue that creationism or ID is much more ceremonial deism than having a chaplain pray.

ID also is not a specific Judeo-Christian doctrine. Not sure where you get that from, but that's simply not true. It's neutral on the specifics of the Designer.

Moreover, permitting the teaching of biblical creationism itself hardly constitutes favoring one religion over another. Arguably, excluding it is favoring secularism as a religion over theism, and that's forbidden by the first amendment.

 

[Dinwar]

Evolutionary texbooks just parroted a lot of stuff like Haeckel's drawings that were not true

This has been shown to be utterly false. On this forum. By ANTpogo. This cannot be mere error--you are lying here, AND YOU KNOW IT. Haeckel's drawings haven't been used in ages. What's actually commonly used are photographs of actual embryos. You simply refuse to see the difference between the two ideas, and dishonestly call embryological evidence for evolution "Haeckel's drawings".

To any lurkers: Please don't take my word through it. Read the stickied thread on evolution, and ANTpogo's subsequent thread on Haeckel and modern embryology, to see the proof for yourself. It's conclusive, and randman cannot fail to know it.

Except that's not the process evolution went through.

Yes it is. It happened in Darwin's time, and nothing uncovered in more than a century has shown it to be wrong. In fact, most of Darwin's predictions have been found.

and there wasn't a strong peer-review process that vetted evo theory,

Your knowledge of the history of scientific thought is as bad as your understanding of evolutionary theory. I suggest anyone who's ACTUALLY interested in the topic get a copy of "Darwin's Century". Darwin's theory is the end result of a long chain of ideas that were vetted in peer-review, and Darwin's idea itself underwent the process (the details of the process have changed somewhat, but the principle is the same).

and it's still not really been vetted because the evolutionist community is very hostile to any criticism.

We're not hostile to criticism. We face it every day--as I outlined above. What we ARE is annoyed by people who don't know the basics trying to tell us that we're all wrong because they misread part of a paper once (that's your coral example, if you're curious, randman).