The Separation of Church and State

[rccar328]

In a way, Darwinism or naturalism or materialism or evolutionism, whatever you wish to call it, could be called an atheistic religion - which is basically what Secular Humanism covers.

[RoxStar]

In a way, Darwinism or naturalism or materialism or evolutionism, whatever you wish to call it, could be called an atheistic religion - which is basically what Secular Humanism covers.

 

If said isms are religions, so is every other scientific theory that can have an "ism" suffix slapped onto it.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

In a way, Darwinism or naturalism or materialism or evolutionism, whatever you wish to call it, could be called an atheistic religion - which is basically what Secular Humanism covers.

There is no such thing as "atheist religion", more than there is a "living dead body" or an "meat-loving vegan".

 

Have a look for yourself.

 

Knowing that we evolved, rather than being created, is not an "ism" more than it's an "ism" to know that the Earth is round and rotates around Sol.

 

Atheism is the absence of religion, not religion. Spreading the knowledge of evolution, gravity, mathematics, fine arts, and science is not "preaching" but "education".

[SkinWalker]

I belong to the Church of Gravitism and Algebrism. We believe in the power of a weak force of nature to keep two trains on a horizontal plane, but only if train A leaves the station 20 min before train B and that the velocity of the first train will always be known as Ax and the second By.

 

In otherwords, the superstious always seem eager to find ways to point at the non-superstitious and say, "see, you're just as superstitious as I am!"

 

I think I may have posted the full text of this article elsewhere in the Senate Chambers, but the accusation of "scientism" isn't a new one. Though it is one that I've only recently encountered as I debate anti-science types on the net.

[lord ignarn]

In a way, Darwinism or naturalism or materialism or evolutionism, whatever you wish to call it, could be called an atheistic religion - which is basically what Secular Humanism covers.

 

Those aren´t a religion, but science. The evolution it´s accepted as a cientific truth, well based in the science (look for a thread on evolution in this same forum). The thing is that I believe in the theory of evolution as I believe in the principes of the thermodinamic, or in the laws of LeChatelier.

 

They are science, and the science it´s open to change, not to interpretation. Tell me, can you interpretate this: "The nature goes to the maximun entropy, so the situation of minimun entropy won´t be reached, so the minimun temperature, 0 kelvin, never will be reached as means the maximun order. " 3rd principe of the termodinamic.

 

I ask this because the religion can be interpreted and discussed theoretically, the science must be discussed practically.

[Samuel Dravis]

Those aren´t a religion, but science.

He's not talking about what science has already 'proven', he's talking about the belief that it will be able to answer everything eventually.

[rccar328]

Basically what it gets down to is that you accept evolution theory as fact just as I accept creation as fact. There is a lot of evidence for evolution, just as there is a lot of evidence for the existence of God (though I know you won't agree with me on that). A truly scientific person will be willing to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a supernatural being, whether or not they follow any particular religion or even believe in a supernatural being - pure science renders no opinion on the supernatural, but deals only with the natural.

 

The point that I am making is that while evolution theory is widely accepted as fact, the evidence is not complete, no matter how much you lay out in support of your argument. And the evidence for evolution will remain incomplete until we can travel through time. You believe in evolution because you have faith that evolution is the truth. The evidence that you have in support of evolution strengthens your faith in it. Spiritual people believe in creation based on faith, and they have the evidence of spiritual experiences to strengthen their faith in creation and a creator.

 

To say that athiesm cannot exist as a religion is just closed-mindedness rearing its ugly head in the Chambers yet again. There are polytheistic religions, there are monotheistic religions, and there are atheistic religions. Secular Humanism is an athiestic religion, just as Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

 

And to say that science cannot be interpreted in different ways or discussed theoretically is another example of closed-mindedness. For example: in the study of physics, you have the law of gravity. In biology, many times you have the theory of gravity. I've never understood just why that is - I've never dropped my keys and had them fall up to the ceiling. Everytime I fall, I fall down - never up. Yet there is some dissention between the sciences over whether gravity is proven or not.

[toms]

Nothing is EVER prove in science... thats why its always called a theory. Scientists alwasy continue to question and refine theores so that they become more and more accurate over time. Evolution is just as provable as gravity... both have numerous demostrable instances and can be replicated/predicted based on these observations.. but that doesn't PROVE that next time you drop a cup it won't fall to the ceiling... nothing can prove that.

 

You can argue that those who religiously pursue aithiesm treat it as a religion... but for those that simply don't believe in god.. surely that is the antitheisis of a religion?

 

There is a lot of evidence of the existance of god???? WHat? When? WHere? How did miss this??

You can never disprove the existence of a supreme being... but unless he pops up and says "hey,its me! god!" then you can't prove it either... and even then you would have to take his word for it.. he could just be a more evolved life form.

[Samuel Dravis]

Basically what it gets down to is that you accept evolution theory as fact just as I accept creation as fact. There is a lot of evidence for evolution, just as there is a lot of evidence for the existence of God (though I know you won't agree with me on that). A truly scientific person will be willing to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a supernatural being, whether or not they follow any particular religion or even believe in a supernatural being - pure science renders no opinion on the supernatural, but deals only with the natural.

Science is an axiomatic system, and one of the axioms it works off of is that everything observable has a natural cause. This works quite well for explaining any physical system. Explaining/proving the existence of any God is quite a different matter. Science simply does not take the existence of God as an axiom, and therefore any independent actions taken by him would be written off as random chance because they are not explainable by natural phenomena and are therefore absolutely useless as a way of understanding the natural world.

 

In your system, you see miracles because God exists. Those same events are just chance to another person, because why should miracles happen if there's nothing to cause them? Both of ways of thinking are internally self-consistent and both are 'correct' (to the person that believes them, at least). I really don't see why people should have such trouble with each other over this...

 

The point that I am making is that while evolution theory is widely accepted as fact, the evidence is not complete, no matter how much you lay out in support of your argument. And the evidence for evolution will remain incomplete until we can travel through time. You believe in evolution because you have faith that evolution is the truth. The evidence that you have in support of evolution strengthens your faith in it. Spiritual people believe in creation based on faith, and they have the evidence of spiritual experiences to strengthen their faith in creation and a creator.

You're quite right - you can NEVER prove a negative in an infinite universe. Same goes for the FSM (I know you love him, heh) - you can't prove he doesn't exist.

 

To say that athiesm cannot exist as a religion is just closed-mindedness rearing its ugly head in the Chambers yet again. There are polytheistic religions, there are monotheistic religions, and there are atheistic religions. Secular Humanism is an athiestic religion, just as Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

Strong Atheism requires just as much faith as believing in a religion, it's true. Weak Atheism (aka "denial of other's claim that a god(s) exist based only on lack of evidence, not bias") does not require faith. Grouping the two is a gross generalization.

 

And to say that science cannot be interpreted in different ways or discussed theoretically is another example of closed-mindedness. For example: in the study of physics, you have the law of gravity. In biology, many times you have the theory of gravity. I've never understood just why that is - I've never dropped my keys and had them fall up to the ceiling. Everytime I fall, I fall down - never up. Yet there is some dissention between the sciences over whether gravity is proven or not.

Perhaps there is disagreement over the specifics of gravity, but I don't think I've ever heard of someone denying that a force exists that keeps us on the ground. What I do know is that it doesn't matter if it's the genuine hand of God or the theory of gravity holding us on the ground. The only requirement is that it behave the same way every time, and if it does that we can make assumptions based on it. It doesn't matter what it actually is, only how it behaves.

 

There is a lot of evidence of the existance of god???? WHat? When? WHere? How did miss this??

You can never disprove the existence of a supreme being... but unless he pops up and says "hey,its me! god!" then you can't prove it either... and even then you would have to take his word for it.. he could just be a more evolved life form.

Even him popping up like that wouldn't actually prove he exists. In order for him to 'pop up' and allow us to see him, the representation of him would be less than infinite. If it's limited like that, you can't know if it is actually God or not. You can never prove (working off of scientific axioms, of course) that God exists.

 

That being said, I'm slightly irrational.

[StaffSaberist]

My belief on Seperation of Church and State is as follows: We the People should practice the religion (or lack thereof) that we choose, and the government can't regulate what we believe in. And whadd'ya know: That system has been in effect for quite some time. I know some of you are going to tell me that W is spreading Christianity (or trying to) but that can be easily refuted by pointing out that he has not attempted to pass laws that force people to believe/not believe a certain religion.

 

About proof of God: If there was a way to prove God's existance with any evidence other anecdotal, there wouldn't be such a diversity of religions across the world. Of course, the fact that there are so many religions makes it a little difficult to prove that he doesn't exist.

 

Do I believe He exists? You know I do. But that's why they call it a faith, right?

 

That being said, I'm slightly irrational.

 

No, you're not. You helped make an excellent point that I basically summed up in my above paragraph.

 

Also, someone brought up the point about Gravity - I say that whoever made up "intelligent falling" is a little weird IMHO. It may be possible that God keeps us down, but I have yet to find Scripture that backs that up. So I'll say "no".

[TK-8252]

I know some of you are going to tell me that W is spreading Christianity (or trying to) but that can be easily refuted by pointing out that he has not attempted to pass laws that force people to believe/not believe a certain religion.

 

He hasn't tried to force people to convert to christianity, but he sure as hell has pushed aspects of the christian lifestyle on all Americans. Whether it be by discriminating against gays, restricting abortion and contraception, forcing creationism into science class, etc.

 

These are all subtle ways to spread christianity.

[StaffSaberist]

I'm not going to defend George Bush. But I will say this:

 

1 - The Bible says nothing about abortion. Nothing! So being anti-abortion has nothing to do with being Christian. The closest passage I found to abortion was that if a man strikes a pregnant woman and she has a miscarriage, the man is responsible. True today, is it not? You can go to jail for assault for that one.

 

2 - It is my belief that both the idea of creationism and evolution should be brought up in science class, at least high school and above. By that age, students should be more than capable of deciding for themselves, assuming the curriculum is balanced, i.e "the theory of evolution states that yada yada, whereas the theory of creationism states that blah blah blah". I think we can agree that if teachers do not put emphasis on one or another, students should be fine in hearing two sides to the story.

 

As for W forcing creationism in: I haven't read of him doing this; I'd like to read a bipartisan article concerning this. Again, I'm not going to be W's puppet on this issue.

[TK-8252]

1 - The Bible says nothing about abortion. Nothing! So being anti-abortion has nothing to do with being Christian. The closest passage I found to abortion was that if a man strikes a pregnant woman and she has a miscarriage, the man is responsible. True today, is it not? You can go to jail for assault for that one.

 

I just found an interesting wiki on this...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_abortion

 

2 - It is my belief that both the idea of creationism and evolution should be brought up in science class, at least high school and above. By that age, students should be more than capable of deciding for themselves, assuming the curriculum is balanced, i.e "the theory of evolution states that yada yada, whereas the theory of creationism states that blah blah blah". I think we can agree that if teachers do not put emphasis on one or another, students should be fine in hearing two sides to the story.

 

The problem is that creationism isn't even a theory. It is written in a book that also says the earth is flat and is the center of the universe. It's not a very credible book.

 

And for your last part... two words: "Intelligent Design."

[StaffSaberist]

FOA, the problem with Wiki is that you can have it say anything you want. Also, I really couldn't find anything Biblical about abortion. Kinda leaves it open for debate. Especially when you consider that the Book can be interpreted many ways.

 

Second of all, the Bible never says the Earth is flat and the center of the universe. You're confusing that book with the theorems of Ptolemy and Aristotle.

 

And for your last part... two words: "Intelligent Design."

 

Hmm?

[TK-8252]

FOA, the problem with Wiki is that you can have it say anything you want.

 

There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the particular article. It's alright to be skeptical, but most wiki's are accurate.

 

Second of all, the Bible never says the Earth is flat and the center of the universe. You're confusing that book with the theorems of Ptolemy and Aristotle.

 

It does refer to a four-cornered Earth and that god stopped the sun. Then there's Galileo being persecuted by the catholic church for his heliocentric theory which at the time was blasphemy. Only in 1992 did the catholic church admit they were wrong.

[StaffSaberist]

It does refer to a four-cornered Earth

 

Hmp. The phrase is fairly common, only modified, like "Going to the ends of the Earth" and that kind of thing. Some passages are metephorical, you have to know which is which.

 

hat god stopped the sun.

 

Again, a metaphor. God stopped the Earth's rotation, making it look like the sun had stopped. Looking from Earth, it would certainly appear that way.

 

Then there's Galileo being persecuted by the catholic church for his heliocentric theory which at the time was blasphemy.

 

I'm not proud of this fact, but we aren't the only religion to make mistakes. Atheists are equally capable of mass blunders. The fact is, we figured out the truth, so the past is truly behind us.

 

Only in 1992 did the catholic church admit they were wrong.

 

Where do you get that number? I looked for it on Google and couldn't find a definite number. Not on Wiki, or any other site. It says that it became widely accepted but doesn't give a year.

[TK-8252]

Hmp. The phrase is fairly common, only modified, like "Going to the ends of the Earth" and that kind of thing. Some passages are metephorical, you have to know which is which.

 

It originated from that time period, though, when at the time it was considered a reality.

 

Again, a metaphor. God stopped the Earth's rotation, making it look like the sun had stopped. Looking from Earth, it would certainly appear that way.

 

But, it does say specifically that god stopped the sun. It would say that god stopped the earth if back then they knew what we do now.

 

I'm not proud of this fact, but we aren't the only religion to make mistakes. Atheists are equally capable of mass blunders.

 

Atheists aren't members of a religion (we've been arguing this with rccar ), but of course atheists have ****ed some **** up. Stalin was an atheist, something I'm not proud of.

 

The fact is, we figured out the truth, so the past is truly behind us.

 

My point originally was the credibility. Creationism was first thought up by the early Egyptians and was passed on to all religions. Early people weren't all that credible, what with them believing things like the earth being flat and the center of the universe.

 

Where do you get that number? I looked for it on Google and couldn't find a definite number. Not on Wiki, or any other site. It says that it became widely accepted but doesn't give a year.

 

It was on the wiki article for Galileo. I remember my history teacher saying the same year as well.

[Samuel Dravis]

No, you're not.

Yes, I surely am irrational! I work off of scientific axioms all the time because I like being insane.

 

Of course, the fact that there are so many religions makes it a little difficult to prove that he doesn't exist.

I just showed you that proving a negative is rather difficult to do, and you're pulling a fallacy as well...

 

Only in 1992 did the catholic church admit they were wrong.

There was no such retraction made. We admitted no mistakes other than that Galilieo's treatment could have been handled better.

 

ID and/or creationism in science classrooms: No. Please, didn't we have an entire thread about that?

[SkinWalker]

It is my belief that both the idea of creationism and evolution should be brought up in science class, [...] assuming the curriculum is balanced, i.e "the theory of evolution states that yada yada, whereas the theory of creationism states that blah blah blah".

 

Which creation story, specifically, should be discussed in a science classroom and why? Moreover, what has the supernatural and the mythical to do with science? The only context I can think of to bring it up would be to show an example of complete non-scientific, even pseudoscientific, thinking. The myth of Atun speaking the world into existence really has little of scientific value. Nor does the Norse myth of two god-brothers creating the first humans from two logs on a beach. And as interesting as the myth of Pan Gu is, the Chinese god that died and left his body to create the world, it holds little of scientific value for biology, chemistry, physics, etc. Though, perhaps each of these would have scientific value in a Social Studies classroom where comparisons of cultural mythology can be discussed.

 

I'm afraid, however, that the desire to interject Christian creation myths in a biology classroom is obvious proselytizing and therefore unconstitutional.

 

As for W forcing creationism in: I haven't read of him doing this; I'd like to read a bipartisan article concerning this. Again, I'm not going to be W's puppet on this issue.

 

http://www.theocracywatch.org/faith_base.htm

[StaffSaberist]

But, it does say specifically that god stopped the sun. It would say that god stopped the earth if back then they knew what we do now.

 

And it was specifically a metaphor. By def., a metaphor is a simile with 'like' removed, correct? This and other passages are always a topic of debate between theologians, but it is my belief that this passage was written in the viewpoint of an Earth-dweller. After all, it is said that God did not physically write Scripture; He inspired scribes to write them. And there are multiple manuscripts that were written at different times, in different places, by different people that agreed so much that they could be compiled into the book that is the Bible.

 

Also, these books were written well before Ptolemy was around to say the world is flat.

 

The UA team radiocarbon dated the famous Book of Isaiah scroll at between 335 BCE and 122 BCE. Paleogra- phers had dated this scroll at between 150 - 125 BCE. The team also analyzed the commentary on the Psalms (UA radiocarbon dated at between 22 CE and 78 CE); the Messi- anic Apocalypse that paleographers date at 100 BCE to 80 BCE (UA radiocarbon dated at between 35 BCE and 59 CE); the Exodus scroll of the Bible written in ancient Hebrew script that paleographers date at between 100 BCE and 25 BCE (UA radiocarbon tests date it between 159 BCE and 16 CE); and an inscribed round leather patch with holes that was attached to the Exodus scroll. Paleographers date the patch between 50 BCE and 50 CE (UA radiocarbon dated the patch at from 98 BCE to 13 CE). Inscribed patches of this sort have been described in ancient Jewish writings, Tov said.

 

Source

 

The latest of these was dated at as new as 78 C.E.. Note that

 

1. 78 C.E. is a max age, and may or may not be the actual age,

 

2. Ptolemy wasn't born until 85 C.E., later than all the above manuscrpts.

 

3. Aristole was born in 384 B.C.E., however, he spent almost his entire life in Greece, leaving only to go to Lesbos Island (you have no idea how many porn links I got trying to research that) where he got married, but eventually went back to Athens. The idea of Israel meeting with Aristotle is highly doubtful. And word-of-mouth can hardly spread over lands that want the Israelites dead. Oh yes, Israel has always had quite the array of enemies. The chances that his teachings influenced these manuscripts is highly doubtful at best.

 

Does this prove the Bible correct on all points? No, of course not. But it does help prove the Bible isn't 100% wrong, either. If I could prove that 100% of the Bible is completely accurate, I'd have a job as a religious scholar instead of 'student'. Nobody can prove it or disprove it. That's obviously the case; after all, there are quite a few religions in the world, variations on those religions, etc.

 

Atheists aren't members of a religion (we've been arguing this with rccar ), but of course atheists have ****ed some **** up.

 

I know. Forgive me; I mistyped. I meant to point out that the religious aren't the only ones to make blunders, is all. My apologies for the confusion.

 

My point originally was the credibility. Creationism was first thought up by the early Egyptians and was passed on to all religions. Early people weren't all that credible, what with them believing things like the earth being flat and the center of the universe.

 

The Ancient Egyptians did believe that the world was flat, and they had indeed spread that over their region. But to say that religion itself stems from them is beyond inaccurate. After all, the Jews believed in one God, one Messiah, during the time period of their enslavement in Egypt! Someone had to allow them to believe, and it sure as hell wasn't the pharaoh.

 

Which creation story, specifically, should be discussed in a science classroom and why?

 

No specifics. Just the idea of evolution and the idea of creation, or "intelligent design" as the PC call it. Of course, I've never been accused of being PC. I say that the students, if left to their own devices, can make an intelligent decision.

 

Moreover, what has the supernatural and the mythical to do with science?

 

You just beautifully illustrated what I wouldn't want to see in a class. See, that statement seeks to damage the credibility of religion in general, and I'm asking for a completely unbiased lesson plan. That statement skews the whole thing in favor of evolution by passing it off as "just another myth". Well, let me tell you something: What if I told you that evolution was itself a myth? It does exactly what any myth of this type does: It tries to explain the history of the Earth, the history of animal species, and our place in the world. Touching. But the Bible is equally capable of accomplishing the same goals. Neither one can prove their case, however, which is why there is so much heated debate on the subject.

 

OK, scientists have proven that the Earth is far older than 6000 years by our reckoning. Proven it to be billions of years old. My answer is: Who cares? Does it not say in 2 Peter 3:8 that "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day"? So, when Genesis says that the Lord created the Earth in six days, he could be meaning 6000 years! If each day is to a thousand years, would that not age the Earth at approximately 4.5 billion years? That agrees with modern science, and I see no conflicts.

 

The myth of Atun speaking the world into existence really has little of scientific value. Nor does the Norse myth of two god-brothers creating the first humans from two logs on a beach. And as interesting as the myth of Pan Gu is, the Chinese god that died and left his body to create the world, it holds little of scientific value for biology, chemistry, physics, etc.

 

Again, I am not saying that specific creation stories should be taught! I am saying that students should be allowed to choose rather than indoctrinated into a single idea, such as the myth of evolution.

 

I'm afraid, however, that the desire to interject Christian creation myths in a biology classroom is obvious proselytizing and therefore unconstitutional.

 

Funny, that. Biology teachers attempt to convert people into believing in evolution (what did you do, put the word "convert" in a thesaurus?) without giving it a second thought. I was once cornered in a one-on-one with a biology teacher about this very subject. Without her precious internet buddies to back her up (server was down) she soon gave up. She did this because I snickered when she "proved" evolution's reality.

 

Since you attempted to damage the credibility of the Bible, I will do the same for the myth of evolution. Answer these questions:

 

• Where is the next step in evolution? Why don't we see any trace of it?
  
• What caused the first organic life to develop?
  
• What caused that first process to begin?
  
• Why are there no intermediate species? (Yes, I know that toucans from one island look different from toucans on another island. That process is called adaptation, not evolution. And there is a difference; Adaptation does not cause a new species. If it did, why don't we see evidence of this?)
  
• Why does evolution only occur on one planet that we can find? After all, hasn't the universe had billions of years to create life? Yep. So where's the beef?
  

 

See, my "mythical" religion answers all of these questions. I have yet to get such answers from an evolutionist.

 

http://www.theocracywatch.org/faith_base.htm

 

Well, that's as close to bi-partisan as you can get. As a president I say he should not be using the office this way. As a person, he's doing what he should. Every religion attempts to convert others, but the President shouldn't be doing this. So, when he gets out of office he's fine, but now is not a good time for that.

[edlib]

The "stopping the sun in it's tracks" story is a particular favorite of mine.

 

Either way you slice it, the physics involved would mean the end of life on Earth if it ever really happened. The braking friction involved to do something like that would boil the oceans and cause every carbon-based object on the surface to burst into flame.

 

For an example of what I'm talking about: Get out and grab the brake disks of you car sometime after a quick stop from a decent speed sometime.

Now imagine doing that instantaneously with an object the mass of the Earth.

 

Let's not even mention everything on the planet's surface still moving at rotational speed when it pulls to a halt. Like an unrestrained package in the back-seat of your car when you hit a wall at speed, everything is going to momentarily break with gravity, and go flying.

 

Then, after going through all of that; apply enough external force accelerate it back to speed from a dead stop, without turning what's left of the surface totally molten.

 

I guess that's what defines a "miracle."

 

You would also think that other writers (say, the Chinese...) of the time might notice that the day was overlong, and point it out somewhere.

[StaffSaberist]

I think you already know what my answer would normally be. However, instead of preaching about the "pow'r of God" I'll simply repeat myself:

 

If I could prove that 100% of the Bible is completely accurate, I'd have a job as a religious scholar instead of 'student'. Nobody can prove it or disprove it. That's obviously the case; after all, there are quite a few religions in the world, variations on those religions, etc.

[toms]

No specifics. Just the idea of evolution and the idea of creation, or "intelligent design" as the PC call it. Of course, I've never been accused of being PC. I say that the students, if left to their own devices, can make an intelligent decision.

 

 

Again, I am not saying that specific creation stories should be taught! I am saying that students should be allowed to choose rather than indoctrinated into a single idea, such as the myth of evolution.

 

This crap about "teach both and let the students decide" is the sort of rubbish that creationists need to rely on... looks good on the surface, but take a microsecond to actually think about it and you realise its total rubbish.

 

The ideas are in no way on an equal basis... one has actual facts to back it up, the other is one of a hundred different fictional stories with no proof whatsoever behind it.

 

Lets teach students the myth of gravity, but also the story that gravity is caused by the weight of sunbeams forcing items down to earth... and then let students make up their own mind.

 

Lets teach students that black people have equal rights to white people, and also that black people are genetically inferior and therefore have a genetic predisposition towards raping white women... and then let the students make up their own mind.

 

Lets teach students that hitler was nice as well, and that the US started WW2.. after all, students are smart enough to come ot their own conclusions. Assuming they have any fact to base them on... which under your system they wouldn't.

 

Note: Any decently SCIENTIFIC teaching of evolution would point out that evolution, like all scientific theories, is constantly being revised and improved. That doesn't mean you should teach fantasies about the world being created by a giant spaghetti monster simply to "present both sides".

[TK-8252]

Also, these books were written well before Ptolemy was around to say the world is flat.

 

All early people believed that the earth is flat. Egyptians!

 

Does this prove the Bible correct on all points? No, of course not. But it does help prove the Bible isn't 100% wrong, either. If I could prove that 100% of the Bible is completely accurate, I'd have a job as a religious scholar instead of 'student'. Nobody can prove it or disprove it. That's obviously the case; after all, there are quite a few religions in the world, variations on those religions, etc.

 

No one is trying to say that the bible is 100% wrong. There are some great stories in there. I enjoy biblical stories... from a historical view.

 

I know. Forgive me; I mistyped. I meant to point out that the religious aren't the only ones to make blunders, is all. My apologies for the confusion.

 

No problem, I knew what you meant.

 

The Ancient Egyptians did believe that the world was flat, and they had indeed spread that over their region. But to say that religion itself stems from them is beyond inaccurate. After all, the Jews believed in one God, one Messiah, during the time period of their enslavement in Egypt! Someone had to allow them to believe, and it sure as hell wasn't the pharaoh.

 

In Sigmund Freud's book Moses and Monotheism, he suggested that Moses was an Egyptian related to the pharaoh Akhenaton, the earliest monotheist. Which is where he got his ideas.

 

What if I told you that evolution was itself a myth?

 

I'd point you to a dictionary...

 

It does exactly what any myth of this type does: It tries to explain the history of the Earth, the history of animal species, and our place in the world.

 

Except that a myth tries to explain it by saying that some all-powerful, all-knowing, and did I mention all-powerful, being(s) created everything. And that's how it happened. Where's the evidence for this? Just trust them? Okay, that sounds good. Again, that's what the ancient Egyptians proposed.

 

What does a theory do? It tries to explain it by doing things like studying, forming a hypothesis, and finding solid evidence to support it.

 

But the Bible is equally capable of accomplishing the same goals. Neither one can prove their case, however, which is why there is so much heated debate on the subject.

 

Nothing can be "proven." No scientific theory is considered 100% truth. That's the great thing about science; it's flexible, and therefore capable of being improved and revised over time to be as accurate as possible. The problem is when you get religion that says that we are right and everyone else is wrong. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

 

Again, I am not saying that specific creation stories should be taught! I am saying that students should be allowed to choose rather than indoctrinated into a single idea, such as the myth theory of evolution.

 

Creation stories are taught in history class, and scientific theories are taught in science class. What's wrong here?

 

Funny, that. Biology teachers attempt to convert people into believing in evolution (what did you do, put the word "convert" in a thesaurus?) without giving it a second thought. I was once cornered in a one-on-one with a biology teacher about this very subject. Without her precious internet buddies to back her up (server was down) she soon gave up. She did this because I snickered when she "proved" evolution's reality.

 

Biology teachers aren't trying to convert anyone. They themselves probably don't believe it. Relying on them to provide any real support for evolution more than what the textbook says is like trying to get a christian to support atheism.

 

Where is the next step in evolution? Why don't we see any trace of it?

 

It's happening right now. Can you say: "bird flu?"

 

• What caused the first organic life to develop?
  
• What caused that first process to begin?

 

For these questions, I point you here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution

 

That process is called adaptation, not evolution. And there is a difference; Adaptation does not cause a new species. If it did, why don't we see evidence of this?

 

Adaptation is just one step in the process of evolution. I don't think that you understand the theory (perhaps you weren't paying attention in class ). Evolution is something that happens over millions and billions of years. It's not like one day, wow a new species pops up.

 

Why does evolution only occur on one planet that we can find? After all, hasn't the universe had billions of years to create life? Yep. So where's the beef?

 

There is evidence that there was once very simple life on Mars.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ALH84001_structures.jpg

 

See, my "mythical" religion answers all of these questions. I have yet to get such answers from an evolutionist.

 

Well, you can always get "answers" to something. Evidence, now that's a different story.

[edlib]

And my point is that the tales in the Bible and the physical laws we all observe and have to deal with cannot co-exist peacefully. There are too many points where one has to say: "Well, I guess I'll just have to accept it on faith that's what happened,.. although that goes against all my experience of life on Earth."

 

But to "accept it on faith" is the exact opposite of the scientific method, where we strive to prove our theories by testing and re-producing results that match our ideas on how things really work based on careful observations.

 

Therefore, I propose that the Bible is only taught in arenas such as churches and homes, where people seeking spiritual edification can gather together and read the stories and discuss what they might mean, and devise philosophies to work around such inconsistencies as these; And that science, physics, and the ancient history we can research and prove be taught in our secular-leaning classrooms, where spiritual and mythological inconsistencies won't confuse the matters.

 

If what children are taught at home and at church, and then also at school about the creation of the universe and the origin of the human species are in apparent conflict, then that's something they are going to deal with on their own using their feelings and personal logic to work around the problems. It will be good for them to figure it out on their own.

 

I've never been really sure why there's such a move to include spiritual matters in the classroom, anyway. It seems to me that parents and preachers are far better equipped to teach such matters in the first place,.. rather than an overworked and underpaid public school science teacher... Who probably won't share your particular spiritual leanings, and very likely be reluctant to teach your spiritual matters in the first place.

Seems to me that someone like that could ultimately do more harm than good to the religious life of the kids placed under their care. I would think that most parents faced with that particular scenario would be horrified by the prospect.

 

But that's just me...