lap

This is precisely why I specifically said "non-strict constructionist." It has nothing to do with being religious or even republican/democrat.

__________________
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -- Ben Franklin

preludespeeder

I see your meaning now.

__________________
"So, you may think you're going to blow me away with your amazing show of rhetoric, but believe me, I have seen it before, and you're wrong. The thing that you're about to write is not only wrong, but transparently, stupidly, embarrassingly wrong, so wrong that it makes me wince inwardly with shame at the fact that you're a member of the same human race that I am"

Anonymous

preludespeeder

I insulted your intelligence by asking a question about your belief. I think maybe you just don't want to answer the hard questions that religious beliefs poses on the mind. You want to critic science but do not want to critic religion. You are insulting the intelligence of everybody in that case.

__________________
"So, you may think you're going to blow me away with your amazing show of rhetoric, but believe me, I have seen it before, and you're wrong. The thing that you're about to write is not only wrong, but transparently, stupidly, embarrassingly wrong, so wrong that it makes me wince inwardly with shame at the fact that you're a member of the same human race that I am"

Anonymous

GasPasser

Asking a question about my beliefs doesn't insult my intelligence. Your sarcasm does.

The crux of your argument is a valid question to ask. But to respond to my post, one that was political in nature and not challenging ANY science, is simply you being an @ss and has nothing to do with this discussion. You just want to lump us all together as people who believe in either science OR religion. The two are compatible. You can study science without challenging your beliefs. I developed a belief in a creator on my own. My father is an Agnostic Ivy-League grad, we never went to church growing up.

You say that belief in a creator opens up too many questions. As a young atheist, I found the Big Bang to be an incomplete answer. It only answers were we came from recently. Matter existed before the Bang, where did it come from? The eternal expansion and contraction of the Universe failed to give me an "origin." To me, it takes us much faith to believe the Universe "always was" and has no definite origin. It may be enough for you, hell its enough for a lot of intelligent people; but to veil your beliefs in Narcissism doesn't make you look any more intelligent.

This thread is about the Constitutional argument of merely discussing intelligent design, which is the only subject I discussed. It had actually become a thoughtful discussion on both sides without name calling (Quite a diversion for the "Pipe"). Instead of hijacking this thread, revive the "there is no God" thread.

Yariv

Most religious people became so as children. (though there are some like yourself who developed religion later, which is respectable.) Religion thrives on teaching its stories to people too young to question them.

this is why teaching religious thoeries in public schools should be considred with extreme caution. you could say the same about scientific theories, but the difference is that science is OPEN TO CHALLENGES, and religion prohibits debate, despite what ben stein may say.

science, by default, welcomes a challenge because any challenge increases accuaracy and knowledge, which is after all what science is all about. the problem is that all challenges must follow the scientific method, which means evidence must be presented. this is where religion fails - it is a thoery without evidence. it's only selling point is that it satisfies the basic human need to answer hard questions. the need to answer a question is stronger than the need for the answer to be accurate or provable.

so you might say 'if science welcomes debate why am I against including religion'. because debate is for adults, and the debate must be done in a scientific, not emotional, way. and if the debaters decide religion has the same merits as science, then it can be taught to kids. but so far religion has failed to deliver scientifc evidence.

religion is for church. science is for school. that's how they coexist.

why the need by the church to gain more power by forcing its baseless beliefs into the public schools? this is purely political. it does not serve any other purpose.

dawkins' babbling interview does not make his views wrong. nor does he have an answer to every question. but when you don't have an answer, you do NOT have the right to make up an answer.

evolution and creationism are not equal or even similar in weight. stein may present them larry bird and magic johnson playing one on one, but in reality, science is michael jordan, and religion is a 3 year old girl. there is no need to let them play on an even field, and what ben wants is not only to let them play, but to give the girl a handicap of 100 points. problem is, jordan still wins.

I really think this should settle both this and the god thread! unless anyone disagrees with me??? but why would you?

__________________
"What if this wasn't a hypothetical question?"
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/lia
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/jake

GasPasser

Sound argument. And kids will try to debate it, then get parents involved, then...PTA meeting hell!

I would disagree with you, but I've spent way too much time on the Pipe. I need to get the snakes ready for Sunday.

preludespeeder

Maybe you missed the point of my post. You are trying to tell me that an unfounded fairy tale is to be taught to my kids in school because you had some revelation that it is the right idea. I do not think so, it is very straight forward in our government, our kids are to be taught sound ideas that are relative and with factual evidence to be correct. Since religion has neither of these then it should not be taught in schools. If you want your kids to have this belief then send them to a private school that teaches this kind of faith. Science class is to teach students about real science and its methods.

You want our kids to debate what about religion and science. The debate is short and lost for religion. Here is a scenario. Teacher tells the class we have two ways to explain where we came from. The first one is evolution which has a lot evidence and research to explain its reasons. The beginning of this theory starts with a sudden expansion of the universe that is on going today. Students ask questions about the expansion theory, teacher will respond with science is trying to answer the questions today with research. Next up is creationism/ID. This idea says that some supreme being created all of us and that is why we are here. Students first question is either going to be were is the evidence or were did this being come from. Do you see my point, you can not teach something that does have a debatable stance or tells the young mind to blindly believe a story.

This is where my post comes into relevance. You want to debate about creationism and religion being in school and I am asking you how you are going to answer the questions that need to be answered for it to qualify as a relative and evidence based subject. Can you answer those questions or are you going to keep attacking me because you can not answer these questions. This argument needs to have a reason not just some back forth about something very clear in the constitution, separation of church and state, schools are part of the state. That is very black and white.

__________________
"So, you may think you're going to blow me away with your amazing show of rhetoric, but believe me, I have seen it before, and you're wrong. The thing that you're about to write is not only wrong, but transparently, stupidly, embarrassingly wrong, so wrong that it makes me wince inwardly with shame at the fact that you're a member of the same human race that I am"

Anonymous