It's Something All of Us in the West Have in Common.
Published on May 15, 2010 By Infidel In Religion

Albert Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in the public schools. The Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma." The Supreme Court declared the Arkansas statute unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epperson_v._Arkansas

Daniel v. Waters was a 1975 legal case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down Tennessee's law regarding the teaching of "equal time" of evolution and creationism in public school science classes because it violated the Establishment clause of the US Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_v._Waters

Hendren et al. v. Campbell et al. was a 1977 ruling by an Indiana state superior court that the young-earth creationist textbook Biology: A Search For Order In Complexity, published by the Creation Research Society and promoted through the Institute for Creation Research, could not be used in Indiana public schools. The ruling declared: "The question is whether a text obviously designed to present only the view of Biblical Creationism in a favorable light is constitutionally acceptable in the public schools of Indiana. Two hundred years of constitutional government demand that the answer be no." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendren_v._Campbell

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 1982), was a 1981 legal case in Arkansas which ruled that the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" (Act 590) was unconstitutional because it violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. The judge, William Overton, handed down his decision on January 5, 1982, giving a clear, specific definition of science as a basis for ruling that “creation science” is religion and is simply not science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987 regarding creationism. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools along with evolution was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life."The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District


Comments (Page 3)
14 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on May 18, 2010

We believe the creation story has been replaced with a theory that cannot be proven and is nothing more than secular humanism.  Neither can creation be proven or reenacted.  One theory is just as plausible as the other. 

Or implausible.

Thank you for admitting that the Bible story is possibly flawed.

on May 18, 2010

1. Grasp Pineapple firmly in one hand.
2. Insert finger into ring of pineapple
3. Pull decisively pin from pineapple
4. Extend arm attached to hand grasping pineapple over head.
5. Propel arm forward
6. release pineapple when arm reaches optimum trajectory arch.

 

A very interesting debate Infidel.  I am enjoying it.

on May 18, 2010

A very interesting debate Infidel. I am enjoying it.

Thanks.

on May 18, 2010

Thank you for admitting that the Bible story is possibly flawed.

I didn't say that.  I don't think it's flawed at all.  Makes perfect sense. 

I said that creation of man cannot be reenacted or reproduced.  Neither can secular humanism in the form of the Evolutionary theory when it comes to origins be proven.   They are both equal in that reqard.  I also believe they are both part of a religious system.  So again, why can't both be taught as alternative suggestions when it comes to origins?  I'm not speaking about teaching religion only another answer for how we all got here. 

To me one makes perfect sense and the other is an imitation with no answer so they instead shout out/throw out the other theory. 

 

 

on May 18, 2010

when it comes to origins

About which evolutionary theory postulates nothing.  You continue to pretend otherwise.

And evolutionary theory is not a 'form' of 'secular humanism'.  It's a scientific theory.

on May 19, 2010

About which evolutionary theory postulates nothing.  You continue to pretend otherwise.

And evolutionary theory is not a 'form' of 'secular humanism'.  It's a scientific theory.

Creationists claim that "Intelligent Design" does not require a god.

Then they claim that since evolution doesn't require a god, it's "secular humanism".

In reality, of course, evolution (like gravity) is a scientific theory (and could be proven wrong).

 

on May 19, 2010

Creationists claim that "Intelligent Design" does not require a god. Then they claim that since evolution doesn't require a god, it's "secular humanism".

Then Intelligent Design must be secular humanism.

on May 19, 2010

Is there a theme here? I think so. Combine this with widespread belief in UFOs, ESP and Elvis sightings, what I see is a rebellion against scientific orthodoxy. And I think I know why.

http://www.denbeste.nu/essays/pseudo.shtml

on May 19, 2010

Then they claim that since evolution doesn't require a god, it's "secular humanism".

Atheism is a religion.  It's a belief system.  It's just the opposite of Theism in maintaining there is no God.   All your "isms" are religions.  Catholicism.  Hinduism.  Mormanism...etc.  The Evolutionary Theory is born out of the fact that they need answers for why we are here, how we got here and our purpose in life without a God or creator that put us here. 

I know someone who went to an Atheism meeting.  They meet and diss the bible.  Instead of an omnipotent, omnicient God they worship self.  It's all about me after all.  But it's still a religion.  Showing us that right from the get go in the garden "you will be like gods" is correct afterall. 

And evolutionary theory is not a 'form' of 'secular humanism'. It's a scientific theory.

so says the Atheistic Scientists..but not the Christian Scientists but yes it is wrapped up in the package of Science, considered a theory and is considered acceptable while creation by an outside being is not. 

Please note I'm not all against good Scientific Theory or even some forms of the ET but like everything else there is good Science and pseudo Science wrapped up as good.  My son (a Scientist) tells me all the time there is so much subjective material in Science that people have no idea.  It's not always as objective as many believe. 

 

on May 19, 2010

Atheism is a religion.  It's a belief system.  It's just the opposite of Theism in maintaining there is no God.  

True, but irrelevant.

However, evolution, does not make any statements about the existence of gods.

It's like Christianity is a religion and so is Islam but gravity isn't.

 

on May 19, 2010

The Evolutionary Theory is born out of the fact that they need answers for why we are here, how we got here and our purpose in life without a God or creator that put us here.

There is no such 'fact'.  That's just you making a bald assertion, projecting your opinion.  Evolution theory was 'born out of' nothing but human curiosity.  'They' (whoever 'they' are) don't 'need' anything.  And evolution theory has never attempted to ask 'how we got here' or 'what our purpose in life without a God or creator that put us here' may be, much less 'needed answers' to those questions.

on May 20, 2010
It's like Christianity is a religion and so is Islam but gravity isn't.
Gravity can be tested. I can drop a hammer from the top of a building and it will fall.. always fall.   Evolution is very elusive. You can't just put some atoms in a test tube and generate life. they are not equal.
I don't have a problem with Gravity.  It's Science and it can be tested.  
My son sent me this a long time ago when I asked him a certain question about the two viewpoints.  He is probably the most objective person I know and I try hard to be.  Since he was a little boy he wouldn't ever take anything at face value.  In fact, he never would believe me no matter how many times I proved myself credible unless he checked it out for himself.  It's no wonder his life is all about research.  Emphasis added is mine. 
 
"Creation makes scientific claims (even Dawkins will admit that) and is supported by some scientists, therefore it is a scientific view.   Neither can be "disproven" (or "proven") and thus, both are considered credible scientific viewpoints.
The difference is that evolutionists are so viciously biased against the idea of creation that they generally cannot bring themselves to even consider that creation may make scientific claims and that the same scientific data they use as evidence for evolution might also be used as evidence for creation. To this end, they will only define evolution as scientific theory and creation as a set of religious beliefs.
On what grounds is one idea science and the other religion? Please don't say that evolution has been tested by the scientific method and creation cannot be, because that is not true and is merely evolutionist propoganda. Evolution clearly stands outside the bounds of the scientific method. Until you show me a cat that turns into a dog (just so you know this is a pun), there is no existing observable data that can only be interpreted as evidence for evolution.  Because of this, evolution is not proven as you suggest.
The truth is that creation and evolution are in fact competing scientific concepts, because 1) they make opposing scientific claims, and 2) there are scientists that support both ideas."
Now the point of my previous comments was to address a statement that scientific views are not subjective.  Any research scientist knows that there is a great deal of subjectivity in Science. My illustrations/analogies were meant to make the point that scientific views are in fact subjective.   If they were objective, you could not get two interpretations for one set of data.
To take things a step further, this idea is also applicable to the evolution/creation debate.   The data stands alone as objective, but there are two opposing subjective interpretations of the data that can be made.  Just because you strongly believe in one particular interpretation, you cannot discredit the other on the basis of "I don't like it."   So if we all play by the same rules, evolutionists cannot scientifically discredit creation theory in the same way that creationists cannot scientifically discredit evolution theory.
on May 20, 2010

So if we all play by the same rules, evolutionists cannot scientifically discredit creation theory

We don't have to 'discredit' it.  Because it's not a theory.

on May 20, 2010

KFC Kickin For Christ

You can't just put some atoms in a test tube and generate life.

The problem I have with this statement in particular is that it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. The theory of abiogenesis on the other hand matches the event you are describing here.

 

The fact is, there is no such thing as rapid macroevolution, and any experiment set up to demonstrate macroevolution would have to be rigorously maintained for at least 1000 years to show even the slightest amount of deviation from the general population.

on May 20, 2010

Please don't say that evolution has been tested by the scientific method and creation cannot be, because that is not true and is merely evolutionist propoganda. Evolution clearly stands outside the bounds of the scientific method. Until you show me a cat that turns into a dog (just so you know this is a pun), there is no existing observable data that can only be interpreted as evidence for evolution. Because of this, evolution is not proven as you suggest.

Proof that one can be 'objectively' stupid wrong both.

14 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last