The holy grail...or just a broken cup?

[Daniel ~]

"Today, Judge John E. Jones III struck down the Dover school board's attempt to impose religious ideology in the District's science classrooms. Jones' ruling reaffirms that religion has no role in science curriculums and represents a major setback in the religious right's war on evolution.

With your help, DefCon is now on the front lines of this fight with the religious right. Over 5,000 of you sent letters to Governors and school board members across the country, urging them to protect evolution. Today's victory is one indication that our side is winning. Last month, we registered another important victory when Dover voters threw out 8 of the 9 pro-intelligent design members of the school board.

Now we need your help again. The religious right may have lost in Pennsylvania, but they are forging ahead in school districts across the country. As this fight broadens we will need all the support we can get. Urge your friends and family to join the fight. Together we will win not only in Dover, but throughout the country, ensuring that our children learn science based on facts, not religious ideology.

Keep up the great work!

Your friends at DefConAmerica.org

© 2005. DefCon: Campaign to Defend the Constitution
info@defconamerica.org"

[Azriel]

I agree with this one.

Church is church. School is school. If they wanted to add an optional vocation line of theology, I think that'd be the best answer, as long as all religions are represented. Were I a student in a school that offered optional religion classes for vocational credits, I think I'd take courses in other religions just to better understand them. Imagine the improvement we would see in 20 years. The biggest problem with religion has always been prejudice and ignorance. Through better understanding of religions other than your own, you would become more tollerant of others beliefs.

[DiabloAbogado]

This is a dumb topic. Intelligent Design is fine for sunday school, but has no place in the public educational system. If we teach intelligent design in schools, shouldn't we teach every religions "theory" on creation even though none are really based in science? If you answer yes, do you really think schools would? Doubt it.

[Daniel ~]

For me, the most damning this is that they want it taught AS Science.

Science is a method of inquiry. Faith is an attitude, religion is dogma. (Believe it because we say it's true, do it because we say you must.)

A Scientist has as much claim to faith as any religionists.

a few religionists have made excellent Scientists. To force dogma upon science is simply a lack of faith.
These are not sincere people. They want power over others. The hallmark of dogma throughout history. Dogma functions as politics, the politics of tyranny.

[Seperah]

First off, its not a dumb topic

Next off, many of the "major" religions in the world I find to have much in common. --However the biggest thing they all agree on... a sole, (sometimes multi god) creator, and the supreme entity ruling over all.

Its simple, we dont need to consult every freaking dinomination.
Leave any religous implications out of PUBLIC teaching unless its an elective class. Why? - religion has no scientific proof or support. With the exception of living people. Example: Jesus was a real man, however that doesnt mean he's the son of god.

[surlyjoe]

Originally Posted by Daniel ~

These are not sincere people. They want power over others. The hallmark of dogma throughout history. Dogma functions as politics, the politics of tyranny.

unfortunatly this seems to be a universal problem with religion in general.

[Daniel ~]

A lack of faith on religion's part I think...

"The Truth is written upon your heart"

J.C.

[VoiceInTheWild]

[quote=Daniel ~] Together we will win not only in Dover, but throughout the country, ensuring that our children learn science based on facts, not religious ideology.]

Faith is a strong belief in something unproven. but when it comes down to it, the general theory of Evolution, has never been observed. dogs produce dogs, people produce people and aids virus produce aids virus.

Genuine evolution requires a change that will add more complex "code" (-note bill gates himself said that Human DNA is like a complex computer program.) to transform an ape-like ancestor into a human, or a dinosaur into a bird.

There are two primary methods touted: These are Natural Selection and Mutations.

Natural selection "selects" by random genetic combinations within a species. The example is darwin's finches. Different finches had different beak lenghts which were suitable for different diets. The genetic information for the multiple beak lengths is pre-existing within the bird's genetic structure. given differing weather patters, over generations the birds beaks decrease or increase in length. This adds no new information; ie that which is required for true evolution.

Mutations: these can involve the deletion of genetic material or the replication of a given genetic sequence. In humans, this causes down syndrome. In the case of resistant bacteria, the cause of resistance is a mutation deleting a chemical regulator. this shuts off production of the chemical the medicine clung to to destroy the bacteria.

Conclusion: Only a fool would look at a dual core Athlon X2 2GB RAM, SATA2 HDD, DVD-RW and say, that happened by chance!

Yet a "thinking" person would look at a tiny bacteria, with a complexity and design that puts man's greatest inventions to shame, and say, "that happened by blind accident"

Therefore: Neither Evolution not creation should be taught in the science room; chemistry, computers, observable empiracle science should be in the class room. Evolution is a pseudo-scientific faith. I love science. I love the technology, the exploration. I am extremely dissapointed that a group dedicated to empiracle science would waste time, money and effort fighting to keep evolution in schools. Why not fight to include more real science?

I might also further add that a real science does not need to be "protected" In fact, true science should be eyed warily, pounded, tested and scrutinized under a microscope.

[danrok]

Why shouldn't evolution be taught as a science?

We know for a fact that humans have evolved as has all life on this planet. This has nothing to do with faith or belief and everything to do with science.

[Daniel ~]

[quote=VoiceInTheWild]

Originally Posted by Daniel ~

Together we will win not only in Dover, but throughout the country, ensuring that our children learn science based on facts, not religious ideology.]

Let me guess someone has shown you guys how to run bots in forums...Yes? ) Careful...Nasty for a Christian to lie you know!":O}

1. You've attributed a quote to me that rightly belongs to another, sloppy!

2. No, " FAITH IS BELIEF IN THINGS NOT SEEN". ( Sloppy!) Faith needs no proof, nor dogma. Faith CANNOT be proved. It wouldn't be faith if it could!!

3. "Genuine evolution requires a change that will add more complex "code" "

You have ABSOLUTELY no idea of how evolution works, even in Theory. It has nothing WHAT-SO-EVER to do with the "complexity" of DNA code."

From the simplest to the most complex, the LAW functions the same, via mutation and natural selection, not by way of addition. No, the possibility of longer beaks DOES NOT have to be present, it can and does EVOLVE.

This is why you guys are so hard to talk to or convince! You haven't taken the time to understand your opponent, nor science, nor how science functions. Why should you! You know your right! Again, as always...to sloppy for words.

4. EVOLUTION HAS been DIRECTLY observed in as much as mutation has been directly observed. A theory CAN NOT be observed in and of itself as it is an explanation that covers all the facts we know though observation. It to EVOLVES as new fact, not new ideas become known.(SLOPPY!) New ideas generate new theories and seek facts to support them though observation. NOT though simple assertion of dogma.

Of mutation there is no doubt, in it's most prevalent form among humans it's called cancer. (uninformed and sloppy!)

4. I know this will be a shocker for you, but no relationship between Bill Gates and DNA has ever been advanced by science nor is bill Gates a scientist. Nor is computer code DNA.

(Just plain dumb.)

5. You seem to love something you have never met, science. You do NOT understand how scientific method works, you do not understand the theory as it was advanced nor how that theory has evolved in light of new facts and understanding.

6. If You as you say LOVE science, (but want it never to be taught)

then realize that you can't learn science from religious hand outs with talking points.

It requires more than you have brought to bear. But then it was never your intention to learn scientific method, was it? ( It's evil for a Christian to lie, even for Jesus!)

You merely wanted to sound like you know science, and love it, (but not as much as you love the Lord!)

So you can BS in forums like this.

I'll let those who do love science deal with the rest (should they care to) of the mess you've posted for Jesus!

BTW Cool User name! Is that the name of the talking points you read?

It's a real shame you have not the faith to greet the world in the spirit of the law as you have zero understanding of the Letter of the law. You fail both Religion and science.

[Daniel ~]

VoiceInTheWild, (oh shades of John the Baptist!)

We all like litmus tests right? Here's mine, how old is the Earth? (Tell the truth and shame the Devil!)

Let's see if you love science or the LORD! (That's not either/or, one can, by mediating with intelligence between fact and meaning, do both.)

Do your bots tell you when someone has responded? No worries our E-mail notifications will handle it!

[DiabloAbogado]

Besides, the Theory of Relativity is accepted as factual, but it is still a theory. Never proven. But, it's ok to teach this because it doesn't go against Christianity.

[Daniel ~]

Yet!.... But then neither does Evolution... it just goes against half-baked Christians who haven't taken the time to understand their own religion. There is NOTHING what so ever in the basic tenets of the New Testament that calls for one to have to give up one's ability to reason from facts observed. If they could grasp this they could grasp the spiritual laws Jesus left them.

But failing this, they turn one of the most profound teachings the world has ever known into magic and superstition. They are trying to hand their own religion back over to the scribes and pharisees, who Christ HATED!

Their real offense is not against science, but against their own religion.

[DiabloAbogado]

Lmao!!

[dsio]

Though I always respect your position Dan, I often find myself disagreeing with you on political matters.

This isn't one of those times.

I had the misfortune of going to a Christian boys school for years 1-7 where science was taught as "God's magic". I was lucky enough to go to a non-denominational Grammar school for years 8-12 thankfully, where we had evolution and natural selection taught to us.

I personally feel that religion is a crutch, that people who have nothing to live for use to qualify and validate their existance. I love myself far too much to need justification for my life.

[dsio]

Also, at the Grammar school I went to, we did hear of religious beliefs, to get an idea of other people's views, but from an observational point of view, rather than a preaching one.

We also had readings from the holy books of christianity, buddhism, islam, shintoism and judaism, daily. They were not given as religious teachings however, they were given as words of wisdom.

Each day it was either a religious story, a fable, or a quote from a famous leader or scholar. That is how I consider religion being of use.

By offering words of wisdom, rather than beliefs.

[chrisbard]

~6000

[danrok]

Originally Posted by Daniel ~

There is NOTHING what so ever in the basic tenets of the New Testament that calls for one to have to give up one's ability to reason from facts observed.

I'd agree, it's quite safe for a Christian to believe that snakes do not talk to you.

[alexkerhead]

All humans need a reason to live, and ignorant humans need to live for an artificial purpose that tells of magic, afterlife, etc, because they lack the ability to rea