Christians should keep Scripture out of politics

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

I'm starting to believe your being purposely obtuse

Because one is based on the principles of Scientific Theory, and the other is based on a mythical story (don't be offended).

When it's untestable and unprovable, what scientific theory does the highly unlikely theory follow? How is it different from a myth when there's no scientific justification for the highly unfeasible story touted by "science"? (No offence, I was trying to lure you in to say just that )

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

That is your interpretation, the words of the Founding Fathers show their is disagreement about the Seperation of Church and State.

Teaching Religion in school belongs in the correct context, in a theological discussion. Science and Scientific Theory and Creationism are not similiar, one is a Scientific Theory and one is a Theological belief.

Then put it in the correct context. Theory also demands a belief. “Theory” means it has not been proven; therefore relies on one’s belief that the theory is true.

Do you believe there are black holes?

Yes.

Really? Have you ever seen one?

Well, no.

Then how do you know they exist.

A really smart scientist used some really complex math and told me they exist.

Did that scientist ever see these black holes?

No.

I see, so you believe in something you’ve never seen and what you were told existed?

From this context it’s no different than a belief in God. Just because you are applying math to it doesn’t make it any more believable. And because it can’t be proven by some ambiguous mathematical computation doesn’t mean it should be excluded from the classroom.

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Creationism would fall under Theology class, because its One Belief of One Faith (ok maybe more than one) but it is not the ONLY belief (just the one you agree with). Other Faiths have different Origin events, Theology class is the setting to discuss them.

I’m not proposing any faith be excluded. Perhaps creationism could be taught in history courses or anthropology courses. What difference does it make what the forum is? There is no violation of the 1st amendment by teaching creationism or religion.

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

That is where the "worry" comes from, You and T_P are trying to equate (one particular) Creationism event with Scientific Theory. Besides the fact that they arent mutually like issues, your not asking for other faiths Creation events to be discussed, you want your particular flavor discussed.

No I’m not. I think it’s fair to discuss them all. We don’t narrow our history lessons to just one culture. It’s pretty disingenuous to assume because I am a Christian that this is where learning about faith should begin and end in the classroom. I am discussing this strictly from a constitutional standpoint. My specific faith does not come into play here.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

I'm starting to believe your being purposely obtuse

Because one is based on the principles of Scientific Theory, and the other is based on a mythical story (don't be offended).

And who created these scientific principles and theories?

Who created these mytical stories?

Why is any of what you are contending a reason to keep creationism or religion out of the classroom?

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by This_person

I'd be happy if ANY of them were discussable besides one theory.

Maybe that's what frustrates so many of us non-religionists: we are bombarded with continued efforts to convince us that someone's preferred religious flavor is the right & only one. In our country it is predominantly the Christian belief -- though when it is convenient they include "Judeo-" in with it.
Perhaps the you, along with the other 3 or 4 substantial posters on this thread, truly would like to learn about all the other religious beliefs. Would they all really get equal time? I suspect that most of the Christians would only accept that -- teaching all the other beliefs -- if they were prefaced and appended with a statement about how ridiculous and unbelievable those (other) myths are.
There have been hundreds if not thousands of successive and concurrent cultures with their own beliefs and all of the theisms have distinct similarities with some of the others (which raises the hypothesis that Man created God and not the other way around): good & evil, living right & punishment for transgression, supplication & answered prayers, spirit & afterlife, etc. Which creation story rings truer: the belief that man was made out of mud then wood and finally maize, or that God made Adam from the dust of the earth and then made Eve from a rib bone? The first made sense to the Incans...
IMO, the biggest difference between the extinct religions, along with the existing tribal ones, and the current Big Three groups (Abrahamic, Indian, Far Eastern -- remember, you aren't alone in "knowing" that your choice is the right one) is the written word which allowed the “modern” theisms to propagate, institutionalize and endure.

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Then put it in the correct context. Theory also demands a belief. “Theory” means it has not been proven; therefore relies on one’s belief that the theory is true.
Do you believe there are black holes? [...]

Black holes were postulated, and their effects were observed, and though they themselves have not been seen, everyone who reviews the facts about them agrees that they exist. There are numerous theories about various aspects of them but to dispute the existence of black holes in the face of the gathered factual data is ludicrous.
Science is a rigid process where a hypothesis (belief) is tested and supporting evidence establishes it as a theory; a theory must be predictive and logical and consistent and stand up to the scrutiny of unbiased individuals. Religion is none of those things. Every major theism disputes the validity of the others (and sects dispute teachings of other believers within their own theology) and none of them can provide evidence to the contrary. By definition, Christian theism requires acceptance of claims that are inconsistent with natural, observable laws.
The established church fervently embraced geocentrism once (thank the FSM that it is no longer accepted as "fact"). Though science "proved" heliocentrism, it was centuries before it was directly observed but that does not make it any less true today than it was in Galileo's time or even King Tut's.
Modern theists chuckle that primitive people believed that their god(s) caused X, because science has since proved that Y causes X and everyone knows that God created Y. So when scientific advancement proves that Y is caused by Z, the believers claim that God created Z.
Stated another way, “we don’t know, so I choose to accept on faith the myths of my religious doctrine.” And that’s fine if you need faith in the supernatural; some of us choose more tangible evidence on which to base our beliefs.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by wildsage

Maybe that's what frustrates so many of us non-religionists: we are bombarded with continued efforts to convince us that someone's preferred religious flavor is the right & only one. In our country it is predominantly the Christian belief -- though when it is convenient they include "Judeo-" in with it.
Perhaps the you, along with the other 3 or 4 substantial posters on this thread, truly would like to learn about all the other religious beliefs. Would they all really get equal time? I suspect that most of the Christians would only accept that -- teaching all the other beliefs -- if they were prefaced and appended with a statement about how ridiculous and unbelievable those (other) myths are.
There have been hundreds if not thousands of successive and concurrent cultures with their own beliefs and all of the theisms have distinct similarities with some of the others (which raises the hypothesis that Man created God and not the other way around): good & evil, living right & punishment for transgression, supplication & answered prayers, spirit & afterlife, etc. Which creation story rings truer: the belief that man was made out of mud then wood and finally maize, or that God made Adam from the dust of the earth and then made Eve from a rib bone? The first made sense to the Incans...
IMO, the biggest difference between the extinct religions, along with the existing tribal ones, and the current Big Three groups (Abrahamic, Indian, Far Eastern -- remember, you aren't alone in "knowing" that your choice is the right one) is the written word which allowed the “modern” theisms to propagate, institutionalize and endure.

Today's scientific myths and gradious stories are no more plausible, no more provable, no more testable, no more feasible than any of the religious stories. So, if you begin the lectures on that with "y'all ain't heard nothin' yet! Yuck yuck" just like you want the religious stories taught, I'd be okay with that.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by wildsage

Stated another way, “we don’t know, so I choose to accept on faith the myths of my religious doctrine.” And that’s fine if you need faith in the supernatural; some of us choose more tangible evidence on which to base our beliefs.

What is the tangible evidence on which you base your beliefs of the origins of life from a scientific, provable, testable, repeatable (ie, scientific method) point of view?

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Then put it in the correct context. Theory also demands a belief. “Theory” means it has not been proven; therefore relies on one’s belief that the theory is true.

Do you believe there are black holes?

Yes.

Really? Have you ever seen one?

Well, no.

Then how do you know they exist.

A really smart scientist used some really complex math and told me they exist.

Did that scientist ever see these black holes?

No.

I see, so you believe in something you’ve never seen and what you were told existed?

From this context it’s no different than a belief in God. Just because you are applying math to it doesn’t make it any more believable. And because it can’t be proven by some ambiguous mathematical computation doesn’t mean it should be excluded from the classroom.



I’m not proposing any faith be excluded. Perhaps creationism could be taught in history courses or anthropology courses. What difference does it make what the forum is? There is no violation of the 1st amendment by teaching creationism or religion.



No I’m not. I think it’s fair to discuss them all. We don’t narrow our history lessons to just one culture. It’s pretty disingenuous to assume because I am a Christian that this is where learning about faith should begin and end in the classroom. I am discussing this strictly from a constitutional standpoint. My specific faith does not come into play here.

I've never said keep religion/theology discussions out of school, as long as all are treated equally. The problem is how do you feasibly give the same credence and discussion to every Religious Belief (which is equally valid). Because there are some one here who would be ok with Christianity being taught, but no way would they accept Satanism (which is equally valid).

What i have stated is Creationism is not equal to Science, no matter your argument. Creationism is a Theological belief as such belongs in a Theological class. Evolution is a Scientific Theory and belongs in a Science class.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

What i have stated is Creationism is not equal to Science, no matter your argument. Creationism is a Theological belief as such belongs in a Theological class. Evolution is a Scientific Theory and belongs in a Science class.

I've asked, and no one seems to be able to answer - What part of the scientific method does any theory of the origin of life, or of human evolution from other species is out there?

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

And who created these scientific principles and theories?

Who created these mytical stories?

Why is any of what you are contending a reason to keep creationism or religion out of the classroom?

I said mythical not mystical

Once again, i have no problem with a Class devoted to Theology, just as their are classes devoted to English/Math/Science.

I do not see a Theological Belief being equal to a Scientific Theory, as such a Science class is not the place to discuss a Religious belief.