Slashdot Mirror
Map of Publicly-Funded Creationism Teaching
Capt.Albatross writes "At Slate, Chris Kirk presents a map of schools in the USA that both receive public funding and teach creationism. It also shows public schools in those states where they are allowed to teach creationism (without necessarily implying that creationism is taught in all public schools of those states). There is a brief outline of the regulations in those states where this occurs, but the amounts involved are not discussed."
For all the trash that gets talked about Texas in this regard, it barely registers here, and only for some sort of "Responsive Ed charter school" that a Texan might explain better - sounds like it's not the normal school system.
Louisiana and Tennessee OTOH - ouch!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I weap for thee...
For as big of a deal that is frequently made of this, it's a lot less then I'd expected. Honestly, it looks like it's only a "problem" in two states, and even there only list as much because "these schools *might* be teaching it."
Just can't let the 'I hate Christians' thing go can you?
on presumably a flat earth
More what?
Stoning of adulterers?
Slavery?
Animal sacrifice?
Other things Bronze Age religion requires?
If Christ turns water into wine, does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?
"The amounts involved are not discussed" because this is a non-story. I spent (served time?) 12 Years in a Tennessee school in a highly populated area and creationism was not taught at all. This article intends to imply that us backwards rednecks are teachin' the chillrens 'bout Jesus, and that simply isn't happening to the statewide scale this fancy map displays.
If Christ turns water into wine, does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?
I turn wine into water... Uh oh.
You sound fat.
First read the bills slate.com gives as evidence.
http://ncse.com/files/pub/lega...
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bill...
Now, show me where it says, "teach creationism".
I'm not saying they are wrong, and that LA/TN aren't teach creationism; but those laws seem to protect teachers from getting fired for teaching [locally controversial] science the way I read them (as long as they don't explicitly say, "you're religion is wrong").
did someone say "teach the controversy"?
For an article supposedly praising science and demonizing religion, it includes a lot of speculation and distortions.
"Schools in AZ *MAY* be receiving funding under a tuition program" is both speculation and distortion.
-> AZ doesn't do vouchers. They have a tax credit program individuals can participate in.
-> the courts have ruled that donations to these programs are private money that individuals can do with as they choose.
But at the end of the day, why does this idiot care, other than to push an atheist agenda?
The only question that should matter is "Does the school teach X, Y, Z." Classically, that'd be Reading, wRiting, and Arithmetic. If they also teach J, K, L and M, who cares.
Hm... the submission system is screwing up the formatting.
Just another idiot using the establishment clause as an excuse to trample on the Free Exercise Clause.
And before you say "But they're using public money"- check that, and be sure it's actually public money- as if there is such a thing instead of private money the government has (mis)appropriated. In at least the AZ case, it's not public money.
It's not hate to want factually incorrect, archaic, dropped-from-the-mainstream facets of Christianity removed from public education in Tennessee and Louisiana.
Only the literalist interpretation of the Bible demands such teachings, but such followers are caught between their own sense of reason and their own faith. Those followers feel if they bend on this, and say the Bible is not perfect, it is the same as denying their entire faith. Most versions of Christianity no longer hold such literal interpretations, so based on the map, it may be a Baptist thing?
If Christ turns water into wine, does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?
Cold Coors Light.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
for dropping the H-Bomb!
Great. You spent 12 years in Tennessee schools back in the 1950s and 1960s. How the fuck is that relevant now, a good 60+ years later?
You seem to fail and distinguishing the concept of "scientific theory" against "made up after too much wine" theory. In scientific terms, the word theory has a special meaning.
Interesting to see stories like this on Slashdot.
Nothing of value to most people, just trying to polarize and be extremist.
Who gives a shit if we were created, evolved, spurt out of the Spaghetti Monster's anus.
Since no one was there, we will never know for sure.
Why is this on Slashdot - it's like going to the Vatican web site and reading about Ubuntu.
WTF.
Oh god yes, because we haven't hit the bottom yet. We need to start stoning faggots, burning witches, owning slaves and doing all that other awesome stuff from your big book of alternatives to rational thought that your magic man in the sky gave to that fictional band of bronze age desert wanderers. You know, go back to the good old days before science and rational thought screwed things up with unholy crap like computers, democratic republics, vaccines, schools, automobiles, satellites, roads, television so you could live out your 30 years of killing non-believers as the good lord intended. Oh, but quick glance at your /. history reveals that you're one of those who hasn't actually READ the book with which you thump everything.
I believe GP's point was that the more theories there are, the better - and I agree. Hell, let's chuck all the 'theories' in there, right down to the last turtle.
I'll explain:
While the Earth is a whole hell of a lot lot older than ~6,000 orbits, it does provide one benefit: You get to force students to think outside the box. Show them what crap science looks like. Towards that end, we really ought to force the little rugrats to think - long and hard; the earlier, the better. Meanwhile, maybe as a reaction, this will spur the school boards to bring back a few things that have been missing from public schools for way the hell too long: Logic, Rhetoric, Scientific Methodology, Critical Thinking, and (actual) Debate. I learned all of this in Catholic school around 6-8th grades, whereas most public high schools don't even bother (let alone at the lower grades). Basically, I want to see this Creationism stunt force the schools into teaching kids to question everything they're told, and more importantly, giving them the tools to actually do it.
Let's face it - nowadays, kids are basically taught to do what they're told in matters that are critical (e.g. civics, science), but to be overly-creative in superfluous matters (art, sex, etc). Maybe in a perverse way, this push for creationism, such as it is, will reverse the slide.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
What happened to you U.S.A? You used to be cool.
Arizona: As many as 15 schools that teach creationism may be participating in the state’s tax credit scholarship program for disabled children or children attending underperforming schools. (Arizona has not released a list of private schools that have received students on this scholarship.)
READ: There are 15 schools in Arizona that teach creationism (*sigh*), and they are apparently eligible to receive tax credits for certain disadvantaged students on a scholarship, but there's no data that says any of these schools actually have any of those students.
The Slate doesn't mention this, but there's a WAY bigger loophole.
You can, in Arizona (as well as a lot of other places) donate up to $200 per person (or $400 per household, IIRC) to a school fully tax deductible from your state taxes. As long as you've got $200 worth of state tax liability, and you like the school your kid goes to more than the general education fund, you can just give them $200 in cash in December, and "get" $200 off your Arizona taxes as soon as you file. Every school here sends their kids home with a donation form every year - it's a cash grab.
So, as long as it's a valid school, you can use state money (in a roundabout way) to pay for their creationism.
The green dots are basically defined as ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS in two states where creationism is allowed to be taught.
does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?
No but my liver does. Always knew the damn thing was evil.
Nearly half of all Americans believe that humans were placed on earth in their current form, magically by the hand of God Himself, with no evolutionary changes or modifications every occurring. And the number is rising.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/218...
Do you want to know what brings about the biblical apocalypse? Ignorance of the natural world in which we live. Buckle your seatbelts, because the ignorant are starting to drive this bus we call civilization, and the last stop is not utopia.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
stand as a bulwark island of rationalism and progressivism against an encroaching sea of faith-based ideology.
I weep for thee
Strangely enough, most people from other states widely accept the stereotype of those states being a bunch of sister-fucking hillbillies and welfare-queen rednecks.
No correlation there, nosiree...
Creationism isn't a theory, in the scientific sense. I'd explain, but I've found writing to your ilk to be like trying to explain physics to potholders.
I think Christianity and creationism should be the least of your worries, or is it okay for.... Civil liberties to be violated without reason? The Government to be controlled by the greedy and emotionless group think corporations? The Fear of our "enemies" to allow us to violate everything we found dear? A large population has been hand fed that Government should take care of every aspect of our lives? We have lost any true sense of independence and risk that comes with going out on our own? Our universities are becoming breeding grounds of social conformity to a homogeneous culture of the mediocre? Lastly, there is a religion that holds all the fears of a Bronze age belief in certain sects, and those sects have ideals of taking over the planet! They are not Christian, Jew or Buddhist! Keep worrying about Creationism, and watch as the USA burns around you! It's like being in the middle of a restaurant fire, and your worried some dirty cutlery!!
TFA is itself flame bait. Note that the map shows schools that may teach alternative theories (including arguing against human caused global warming), but in the title implies that they do teach creationism using public funds.
bet early & often do not get shut out
Slashdot only allows anonymous users to post 10 times per day (more or less, depending on moderation). A user from your IP has already shared his or her thoughts with us that many times. Take a breather, and come back and see us in 24 hours or so. If you think this is unfair, pretend somebody cares
I hope that MIT, Cal Tech, and other top notch science places write an open letter to these school guidance departments, superintendent offices, and the local news paper, that every students who comes from one of these schools will automatically be rejected because of the poor science curriculum that includes creationism.
I urge the slashdot community, who are alumin of these schools, to contact them and urge their alma maters to contact these high schools and reject creationism.
I hope that this would change these school policies.
They are disadvantaged: they don't know evolution.
Table-ized A.I.
I cannot count the number of times I've read some book, article, or comment where the equivalent of a "then magic happens" explanation appears under the rubric of "evolution". Admittedly, not being a scientist, I am limited to popularized accounts, but I don't think it's too much to expect that if there is a clearly known mechanism that is easily reproducible, then authors should be able to describe it to an intelligent layman in a way that makes sense and is understandable.
Speaking off the top of my head, I would say that easily 80% of popular proofs for evolution are no proofs at all, but simply bald assertions: "See this lifeform here, it has this little knob on the end of its whatits. It evolved that way so it could feed better."
I don't know whether it's laziness or what, but if you want to prove something, you have to be able to show it -- ALL the steps, from here to there -- and reproduce it -- ALL of it, under controlled conditions. You can't just say, "because evolution".
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Throwing invalid and in many cases demonstrably false claims at students who don't have the background to see the invalidity is ludicrous. I mean, why single science out? Why not teach Holocaust denial in history class? After all, wouldn't that challenge students too? Perhaps you could also teach 2+2=5 and French verb conjugation in English class.
Schools are supposed to teach science, like any other subject, to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Teaching students that somehow just because someone calls some nonsense claim a "theory" is not teaching at all.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You should care - it seems that Hawaii is not an US territory anymore.
It's almost like you have no idea what the Bible really says or where those lines are from. It's almost like you're just spewing out someone else's incorrect bullshit without knowing anything Christianity. It's almost as if you're mixing the old testament and new testament and I'm pretty sure Christianity had something important that changed things in between the two...hmmm...
There is a very large amount of evidence that children's minds are set to learn and that social facilitation of other children is a very powerful influence in their doing so.
'Hole in the wall experiment', O'Neill's "SummerHill". 'Unschooling' movement. 'Adult literacy' programs. All show that teachers and schools are not needed.
Further, a longitudinal study comparing Montessori and public schools shows that a large amount of our social pathologies can be traced back to pedagogical methods used by public schools.
Way past time to abolish public education.
Christians actually follow the teachings of the Bible's new testament, and consider the old testament laws to be a fulfilled chapter of their predecessors, the Jews. With respect, my suggestion is that you read the entirety of Christ's teachings before commenting on them.
If Christ turns water into wine, does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?
Que syrah syrah, what ever will be will be.
...the states where, if you're from there, you'll be required to take a remedial science course in college because they can't guarantee that you know even the most basic science.
Have you read the book?
Urine != water.
Why just 3 theories? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What about the Universe being sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure? Those "theories" are just a plausible as your Christian or your Simulation theories.
Evolution, on the other hand, makes testable predictions, something none of your other "theories" can claim, which makes then not theories at all in the scientific sense.
I suggest you go back to Grade 9 science class. You obviously need a refresher.
Interestingly, the Christian story and the simulation story are the only ones that solve every one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Evolutionists want to teach evolution because they don't like religion.
No, that's wrong. Evolutionists want evolution taught because it is the best explanation was have for observed and verified facts.
Sorry but why is creationism something that shouldn't be taught? Has it been disproven? (some will say evolution disproves it, however, evolution doesn't as you still need something to exist for it to evolve, if you say that the big bang created all matter, then what created the big bang?). Creationism hasn't been disproven. As such it's still valid to teach it as a possibility. Once you start banning ideas and theories from being taught you go down the path of censorship and book banning.
*we have*
It's almost like you have no idea what the Bible really says or where those lines are from. It's almost like you're just spewing out someone else's incorrect bullshit without knowing anything Christianity. It's almost as if you're mixing the old testament and new testament and I'm pretty sure Christianity had something important that changed things in between the two...hmmm...
Well, you're one-third right at least.
85-92% of people think evolutionists are wrong depending on how you measure it since every religion in the world disagrees with it.
"Every religion in the world"... with the exception of, e.g., the major mainline Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic church. Many of the largest Christian church bodies internationally are just fine with Darwinian evolution, and a world evolutionary/geological history consistent with modern scientific consensus. The people who disbelieve evolution because of their religion --- though quite vocal, and powerful in the US --- are far from representative of today's major world religions.
Which of the 3 has more basis in logic and science?
None because all of your premises are ridiculous jokes.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
and the ones to blame here are more the parents than the schools. If no parent would send their kids to there these schools wouldn't exist.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Actually, yes. I was raised in a mainline Protestant denomination - not Baptist - and the items cited in the prior post were all part of the ideology, even if they were soft-pedaled because some of them weren't acceptable even then.
It's a morass of contradictions and Bronze Age rank superstition, with no saving grace but the poetry in some Old Testament books.
"Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
You miss a valid point...while holocaust denial is obviously not taught by any reputable institution, a history teacher would be remiss in not pointing out that some topics surrounding the holocaust, such as whether the term should include non-Jews, are areas of legitimate debate within the historical community. But then...in history there is an acknowledgement that there is ultimately no one "true" answer, rather just the one most people agree is "most true." As a non-scientist, my perception is that science doesn't necessarily teach such nuances at as early of a level as most humanities. Probably I'm part because truth in humanities is harder to prove.
Pointing out that some nasty people believe nasty things is not the same thing as saying "And another theory is that no Jews were killed by the Nazis, and those who claim it is are members of Jewish conspiracy to enslave God-fearing Aryans."
The same goes for saying "And another theory is that God created humans 6,000 years ago, and it's just as legitimate as the claim that we evolved from a common ancestor billions of years ago."
Creationism isn't a theory, not in the scientific sense, so teaching it as a legitimate theory is teaching children a falsehood.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The New Testament actually has a very pro-slavery attitude, with famous examples like Paul telling runaway slaves to return to their masters. Jesus never spoke out against it or criticized it in any way. In fact, nothing in the Bible criticizes slavery. The modern, popular notion that a proper interpretation of the New Testament demands the rejection of slavery is based largely on the notion of "progressive moral revelation," a phrase which was very important to the abolitionists in America but which has since been largely forgotten by the very people who believe its logical conclusions.
This forgetting of history is very typical of evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity. Evangelicals tend to take a very literal reading of the Bible, and also a very dim opinion of philosophical reasoning that would challenge the rightness of this. They are very selective about which passages they consider primary, though are quick to accuse anyone who calls them on this of "picking and choosing." They only approve of any philosophizing that re-affirms their forgone conclusions. They prefer to believe that all the details have already been worked out, and the distilled truth of the Bible has been handed directly to them by their forbears (I say this both from personal experience with evangelicals and based on reading up on the history of evangelicalism (wikipedia is awesome)).
This group would assert that Genesis is a literal, inerrant, account of the creation of the world.
Mainliners, on the other hand, will readily admit that the Bible is a human work, that most of it is metaphorical (including and especially Genesis), and even that many of the parts that were not intended as metaphors can still contain human error. Catholics will sometimes agree with this as well, depending on their level of education. Both Mainliners and Catholics recognize intellect as God-given, believe that denial of fact is arrogant (and stupid), and that "divinely-inspired" does not mean "divinely-dictated"(nor "inerrant"). Despite the claims that many evangelicals would make, history shows that the mainline interpretation of the Bible is very consistent with its historical use in the church (fundamentalism being a recent creation).
So, reading "the entirety of Christ's teachings" is actually just the beginning. Understanding Christianity requires a whole lot more study than just reading the new testament and calling it done.
There's no "solid, indisputable proof" that anything has ever occurred. All things in the world may be disputed, that's called "falsifiability."
Teaching Christian Fundamentalism however, requires accepting a priori that the Bible is the only source of solid, indisputable proof, and that any attempts to prove it right or wrong are pointless.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Creationism basically equates God to a Las Vegas Magician. They can't seem to believe that God is capable of making a complex system such as Evolution and instead need to provide a simplified dumb-downed theory. God, if he exists, should be insulted.
[The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it. ...
In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!” “Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. “Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.” ]
And this is why Christians hate figs. And throw themselves from mountains.
The generations of Americans that [a] fought and won WWII [b] defeated polio [c] broke the sound barrier, [d] put a man on the moon, [e] developed nuclear power, [f] developed the space shuttle, [g] developed the semiconductor and the modern computer were all educated in American public schools that taught a Christian world view, read Bibles in class, sang Christian music in holiday programs, sometimes had public prayers, and displayed the ten commandments (and in many schools even The Lord's Prayer) on the wall. Many of those same schools permitted kids to have knives with them, and often even guns (some schools actually hosted shooting clubs) and many rural kids went hunting on the way to/from school. Back then, we did not have school shootings, knifings, etc. We also let the general public board airplanes without ANY from of screening, not even X-rays (you could walk-up to the counter, buy a one-way plane ticket for cash, even without luggage, without ANY problems or superstitions (I know, I DID this back then)). Government must now spend BILLIONS of dollars per year just keeping us from killing eachother.
In the sixties, the modern secular effort to strip away all of this "primitive superstition" began with the removal of Bibles from the schools (might as well have had book-burning parties... I guess people fear what they are ignorant of....) and year-by-year our schools have become more secular - and now the modern historical re-write underway has people convinced that any effort to preserve or re-introduce ANYTHING that touches on the religious is both [a] unconstitutional and [b] a new and unprecedented thing. I could point out the rise in things like out-of-wedlock births, drug use, mass-shootings at schools (even though they're now "gun-free" zones) and all the other things that right-wingers point out (correctly and which left-wingers ridicule rather than honestly facing) as moral/cultural harranging but that's not the point of my post.
My point is only that for all the hyperbolic rantings about "creationism in the schools" and an implied "war on science" which the lefties keep pushing, the simple fact is that there's no historical evidence (which is always more valid than extrapolations and hand-wringing by political activists grinding axes) that these beliefs were in ANY WAY harmful to any scientific or engineering efforts in the U.S. in the past, AND there's plenty of evidence that the new, "better" citizens we're churning out from the wonderfull secularized schools of the past 40 years are half as competent as their predecessors; they're just numb-brained morons addicted to iPads and iPhones, unable to see what's "morally wrong" with "end justify the means" policies, unable to appreciate the massive debts being piled onto them, too self-absorbed to appreciate world affairs, and too easily conned into voting for any politician who will promise them "free stuff" no matter the ultimate consequence....simply too foolish even recognize the liberty slipping from their fingers and too inept to preserve it. Progress? Sure, if the goal was to get rid of God, but I'm not so sure if you measure "progress" by any other yardstick. When it comes to matters of public policy, I'm an evidence guy... and I'm not persuaded that this anti-Christian jihad by the left has produced "good" results (philosophical arguments aside) in the culture or for science or engineering (where cheating is now at epic levels)
Christians actually follow the teachings of the Bible's new testament, and consider the old testament laws to be a fulfilled chapter of their predecessors, the Jews.
With respect, my suggestion is that you read the entirety of Christ's teachings before commenting on them.
What does the NT have to do with the Creation according to Genesis?
The Christian fantasy and the simulation fantasy don't solve anything. They just say: "You can't ask questions about X because {the deity / the simulation} has declared it just so."
That's not a scientific theory and it certainly doesn't explain or solve anything.
Creationists have their tax money taken (whether they have kids in school or not) and used to fund schools that teach evolution.
...read the entirety of Christ's teachings before commenting on them.
Yeah, ok. You read all of science starting from quantum mechanics going up to natural selection before commenting.
If, as we assume, the universe created itself many millions of years ago, and everything evolved since then by random actions and reactions until it reached the point we see now, and ultimately everything is headed for extinction and us sooner rather than later, then why does it matter what anyone thinks/believes/teaches? In fact why does anything matter? Once I am dead nothing at all will mean anything to me, it may as well have never been. In the perceived lifespan of the universe, not to mention its perceived physical size, my existence in space and time is as near as I can get to nothing. In fact the existence of the human race from go to woah is pretty much the same too. Life, as we understand it here, has no meaning, no purpose, no significance, no permanency.
So why do we get so uptight about a few people wanting us to believe that an almighty external deity created the universe? At worst it is meaningless, at best it gives us some comfort in our meaningless existence that there is an ultimate purpose to our lives.
It boggles my mind that people can get away with teaching creationism (not just talking about schools) and other religious mumbo-jumbo to children. Teaching outright lies like this about how the universe works to children is just as bad as child molestation.
I don't think you made a valid comparison and you explained why in your last sentence.
History, they say, is written by the victorious. Indeed, actual events may not not reflect past events without bias. Science on the other hand, can be verified 10, 100, 1000 years later. You can still do the same experiments Newton or Kepler did and you will still get the same results because the laws of physics don't change over time. Well, generally speaking, but even if you laws do change.... you can verify the rate of that change at any point now or into the future. One might say "well, someone other than Newton might have actually come up with his laws." True, that's just a name - the important part, scientifically speaking, isn't the name but the
Science, by definition, is a falsifiable study. History isn't necessarily so. One can replay an experiment but one can not go back in time to actually verify history as it was recorded and reported in a text book. Science (physics and chemistry) don't have to account for a motive of any conscious actor. There may be one but it's not a requirement of the scientific method. Accounting for the bias in those who wrote down the history does have to make this account and doing so is anything but perfect. Couple that with the ideas that we don't have much of a historical record compared to today, had far less scientific understanding (didn't know of bacteria let alone the existence of the atom) and a predominantly Abrahameic culture... you end up with people that believe dinosaurs walked with humans.
Remember, the bible was 'written' before man know about dinosaurs in the first place. Only now is the revisionist history written to try and shoe-horn the creationist view.
It's not the creationist view that bothers me personally, it's the 6,000 year thing - trying to turn a metaphor into a fact. If a god of some sort did in fact create the universe, that god was much smarter and more powerful than us correct? Perhaps that god, FSM or otherwise was wise enough to use the big bang and evolution as methods. That seems much more briliant than keeping track of individual atoms and planting false evidence to test faith.
I do study QM and natural selection in my spare time. And Christianity. And I don't doubt QM, natural selection, or Christianity. Occam's Razor... it's the simplest solution that the universe was created.
If you go back and read the thread, I was referring to his misunderstanding of Christ's teachings. I didn't make a reference to Genesis.
It has to be taken on faith or it'd be unfair as an "open competition" according to the original terms and conditions with Satan after the Adam and Eve apple incident.
*boggle*. Satan and the "Adam and Eve apple incident" :) ?? Awesome! :) And from that you go on to talking about teaching science?
Sigh. The OP probably won't even see the irony.
/* kids are basically taught to do what they're told in matters that are critical (e.g. civics, science), but to be overly-creative in superfluous matters (art, sex, etc). */
First, art and sex are not superfluous. If they are, you need to reassess your life's priorities.
But more importantly, Art, Music, and Drama departments are usually on the "hit list" when schools go looking at their budgets, deciding what to cut. I WISH we were encouraging more kids to be overly-creative in those so-called superfluous matters, because those art kids end up being the philosophers of your generation. If you haven't noticed, Art, Music, Literature, Drama are all bastions of "liberal democratic thought" and are thus on the chopping block, just like STEM. Both foster unfavorable "group think."
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com... Science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
If Christ turns water into wine, does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?
He turns water into Moonshine
Good one. :)
the US, the explanation is that God isn't allowed to show up in the sky and scream that he's real. It has to be taken on faith or it'd be unfair as an "open competition" according to the original terms and conditions with Satan after the Adam and Eve apple incident.
WTF!!!1BBQ? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and I strongly STRONGLY doubt most Christians believe anything remotely of the sort. That sounds like some sort of evangelical TV church rubbish more than anything that actually exists within any real study of Christianity.
It's a lot simpler with Buddhists. Everything doesn't actually exist in the first place, lol. It's hard to prove or disprove that but some science supports it.
Except it doesn't, that's an interesting thought experiment but ultimately worthless.
The argument that "some science supports it" devolves to:
"The universe is imaginary. Look at my compelling/suggestive evidence, which I took with this telescope, and thermometer."
"But if your right, the telescope and thermometer don't really exist, and the measurements you allege you took with them are imaginary too. So what does that prove exactly? Sweet fuck all.
Anyone who picks up a fossil and calls it the end-all evidence just because they're touching it clearly hasn't expanding their thinking enough to examine the true nature of physics and matter and space and reality.
Picking up a fossil and using it to make observations about the universe has a history of generating useful hypotheses to predict the outcome of future events. Sure it requires as pre-supposition that we assume the universe follows objectively observable rules. So be it.
Imagining the universe is a computer simulation or imaginary or spontaneously came into being 8 seconds ago may not be disprovable, but its not useful either, except to amuse stoners while they navel gaze.
Teaching it is fine, in a philosophy context. But its not science.
It's not a scientific theory at all, and it's not saying you can't ask questions. Who says science even has the ability to have all the answers? Because, if science can't ever get us all the answers, then there's something else...
C2H6O(Ethanol)(Intermediate steps involving an additional 3O2)3H2O(Water) +2CO2(Carbon Dioxide).
Acetaldehyde is an intermediate compound and is the cause of hangovers. Acetic Acid is another intermediate compound and is the acid found in vinegar.
Evil indeed. The liver turns wine to water AND a greenhouse gas. All while leaving a 'sour taste'.
Though I do like, as appropriate, a good beer, quality wine with dinner and on rare occasions an aged whiskey, the fact you brought the concept of 'evil' into the discussion makes the whole truth.... inconvenient.
Great, a map! Everyone will have something to do during the Obama economy (hunt down and harass their political opponents). Forward!
It's not like there will be any pesky jobs getting in the way! Finally, priorities.
I do not see the problem with "public" money via vouchers going to schools that teach this subject matter. The parents have decided that they want their kids in these types of schools and either agree with or are willing to accept that creationism is also taught there. The problems the liberals have with vouchers is that it takes the decision making process out of government and union hands. The whole God thing is just a red herring.
Show me where those things are in the new testament.
Because, if science can't ever get us all the answers, then there's something else...
And that "something else" should not be taught in science class. It should be taught in the "something else" class.
Besides, no-one can ever get us all the answers. The Universe does not exist for the convenience of people. It's extremely likely that we'll never understand many things about the Universe, and falling back on silly fantasies is an infantile response to the great mysteries of the Universe.
As posted above, your liver turns wine into water... I suppose it's possible that the liver is an instrument of the devil though - the liver does sober us up over time right?
I never PRAYED for this to happen. The astounding audacity my liver must have to automatically cleanse me of a naturally occurring poison.
They are both the same story in essence. A long time ago in a Earth not so far away God/volcanoes mixed the goo over several days/million years to create life. Problem I have is that kooks that are anti-choice, outside of abortion, I despise. While the one that believe God seem to make a livable community with affordable housing for the poor and entry level jobs. I guess it is like whatPrager says that you have to believe in something silly one day a week, otherwise you believe in non-sense 7 days a week.
My problem with Darwinian Evolution is that it is not true and some schools teach it as truth. If you get in the car right now and drive somewhere and someone lets you do something out of the kindness of their hearts, that disproves Darwinian Evolution. Someone, or some animal sacrificing themselves to save someone/something else generally disproves this.
I am not saying that evolution, or at least parts of evolution theory are not correct. I am saying that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is incorrect. Part of this comes from the very rigid restrictions Darwin put on his theory, most of the rigid restrictions have been proven scientifically to be wrong.
Show me where those things are in the new testament.
Burning witches: Revelation 21:8 "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Owning slaves: 1 Timothy 6:1-2 "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." and also Ephesians 6:5: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."
Gawd, the Internet makes things easy. :)
Education is controlled at the state level because they are supposed to experiment, with the best rising to the top.
"Experiment" meaning yes, some will fail.
Does anyone say "I hope our schools are as good as Tennessee or Louisiana"? Of course not. In that sense the experiment is proving out.
Just because it's not fast enough for you, doesn't mean it's not working.
Democracy is a bitch.
-Styopa
MAP
LA and TX... Correlation isn't causation, but damn!
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
I know that there isn't really any way to expose it on this scale, but teachers where I live usually either skip the origins section of the text book or openly flaunt evolutionary theory. They all seem to operate from a mild martyr complex.
Neither is Alaska.
Also, There is no reason to use 'an' when saying 'an US territory.'
signature is pants
The Jews have never considered Genesis to be literal truth, it's always been considered an allegory. Not a history lesson. The standard Christian counter-argument to this is that "You can't trust a Jew because they killed Jesus".
And just FYI, Evolutionary Theory doesn't say anything about the Creation of the Universe, just the existence of life. You'll need to go bitch at the Physics folks if you want to make Genesis "jive" with the Big Bang.
Neither is Alaska.
Also, There is no reason to use 'an' when saying 'an US territory.'
And it is unnecessary to capitalize a word following a comma.
I'm struggling to figure out what teaching it had to do with my understanding of science? Creationism isn't science. I consider myself a Christian but I do not ever conflate matters of historical faith with how fast carbon decays or how electrons move or how likely the next jet I'm on is to fall out of the sky.
Knowledge of the bible has precluded rational scientific theory in exactly none of the self-professed religious people (e.g. Christians, Jews, Catholics, etc.) I've ever known.
It doesn't matter that much if people are confused about the origin of species. It matters a great deal more if they are confused about the origin of wealth, and unfortunately thousands of tax payer funded schools teach the equivalent of economic creationism.
Next step should be history course: God created the universe in 6 day and then rested the 7th day...
(I'm from Louisiana) If you look at the correction at the bottom of the article, Louisiana and Tennessee just look really bad because they appear to have put a bullet point over every public high school in the two states, which probably isn't an accurate representation of the distribution of ignorance. People in the bigger cities, yes, even this far south, tend to be more worldly than out in the boonies (except in Shreveport! They're different up there!). And using the word "education" is a stretch for some of these places. If they teach ID as well as they teach literacy, human civilization has little to fear.
I can't help but see this as a horrible injustice that should be treated as such, and should land those responsible in jail. If someone taught me in school that Santa Claus created the world, and somehow I became smart enough to snap out of it someday, I would be furious that my education involved any sort of nonsense like religion. This is the problem. You stand back and give people their space, instead of telling them how stupid they are and this is what happens eventually. I've had enough. God and religion are truly for the stupid and ignorant.
Anyone notice the two states with the most dots rank 41 and 49 on the list of states ranked by average IQ? Coincidence? I think not.
If a person has the option to reduce their tax burden by instead giving that money to some private party, then the argument of whether it is private money or state money is simply a matter of semantics. No one in this thread has made the claim that private parties shouldn't be allowed to give their money to these organizations, but when that donation triggers a tax benefit, then that donation clearly effects the state's bottom line. I would think that this is glaringly obvious, regardless of whichever "ilk" one may belong to. Or are you deliberately trying to obfuscate the discussion?
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
Almost all the publicly funded schools teach that this is a democratic republic with three independent branches of government that provide checks and balances to protect our constitutional rights. Given how laughably provably untrue that is, the Creationism is a relatively minor problem.
More Creationism!!! No liberalism and fewer democrats, facists, socialists, communists, humanists, whatever they call themselves!
Neither is Alaska.
Also, There is no reason to use 'an' when saying 'an US territory.'
And it is unnecessary to capitalize a word following a comma.
Replacing "it is" with "it's," while not mandatory -- and still sometimes frowned upon by editors -- makes your writing seem less stilted and more conversational.
If otherwise rational adults can be conned in to buying that an omnipotent wizard 6000 years ago created the entire universe from nothing and now needs their tithe to fund his church, how do you expect children to be able tell how idiotic that is?
I hope you are right. Even the teacher who teaches creationism as truth and questions specific elements of evolution at least teaches children to not believe everything you are told, and some of those kids are going to start asking questions about creationism.
The worst is if the teacher doesn't question evolution at all, but just dismisses it or ignores it. "It's just a theory." And doesn't even bother to try to tear it down.
But, the New Testament doesn't really go into the creation of species, so Christians default to the Old Testament.
I guess this makes up a little bit from your "you use words that are too big" argument, but not completely.
Absent from your 1-sided post is any sense of the multiple errors and outright lies that glut teaching life-by-incremental changes. If you wanna call it "creationism," you wanna slap a "religion" label on it when the real religion is the state religion of atheistic humanism. How about these guys are merely teaching the facts of how things really work?
Cranky educator.
But, the New Testament doesn't really go into the creation of species, so Christians default to the Old Testament.
The Old Testament doesn't go into the creation of species either. It says that God made animals. It doesn't say how.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Good, Evolution has no scientific evidence. Plus taxpayers shouldn't pay for one religion(evolution) to be pushed. Watch Kent Hovinds videos for info on how evolution is scientifically impossible and how the education system has knowingly kept false information in the textbooks to push the false theory of evolution.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Throwing invalid and in many cases demonstrably false claims at students who don't have the background to see the invalidity is ludicrous.
But the real world throws-out false and misleading claims all the time. If we don't teach students how to think critically, how to weigh evidence-backed claims against claims based solely on authority, culture, religion, etc., than how are students ever supposed to gain the skills required to make reasoned choices when encountering conflicting 'facts' for the first time?
I mean, why single science out? Why not teach Holocaust denial in history class? After all, wouldn't that challenge students too? Perhaps you could also teach 2+2=5 and French verb conjugation in English class.
I dearly hope schools teach Holocaust denial in history class, and the conjugation of French verbs in English class. Examining the reasons why Holocaust denial persists against overwhelming evidence to the contrary can teach far more about why the Holocaust happened in the first place than any mere regurgitation of the historical facts involved. In the same vein, comparing and contrasting English verb conjugation against the French equivalent can serve as a stepping-stone to understanding how language actually works, which can in turn lead to a whole host of fascinating ideas you might never have even imagined existed otherwise. So yes -- I do hope schools are teaching exactly these kinds of things.
Schools are supposed to teach science, like any other subject, to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Teaching students that somehow just because someone calls some nonsense claim a "theory" is not teaching at all.
You're talking about teaching science instead of religion in the classroom; what I'm suggesting is that we'd be better off if we simply taught the scientific method instead. Ultimately, I don't believe that science lies only in facts like the weight of an electron, or the density of water at one atmosphere, or concepts like the Theory of Evolution. At least as I understand it, what science is truly about is a way of looking at the world around us, thinking about how that world is actually put together, and then testing those thoughts to see if there's any evidence to support them. I think if you can teach core concepts like that to students, and get them to understand what it really means, than you'll have armored those students against the myriad of dogmatic 'truths' the world is all too likely to throw at them.
Yeah cos it's not like there's anything wrong wih beginning a sentence with "And".
dullards that can live with themselves teaching their kids dumb, dull, dickless, thoughts that hold up their fortress of religious beliefs. It's fucktarded and it makes you not a bad parent, but so bad you would have been better just to abort. You are dumb as fucking rocks, dumber than rocks since rocks don't really decide. Go jump off your closest fucking bridge you fucking taint on everything that is defensible with your fucking existence.
ever used "--" in a conversation?
.. Here, I want you to believe in all this fairy tale crap that makes no sense in the real, perceived, logical world, because it allows me to control your life. Your parents believe it, if they didn't they were bad people.
FFS the stupidity of people, and worse what they pass on to their most loved kin... I am thankful that my mother never pushed her horrible fictional beliefs on me, because that is the whole problem. The problem is that idiots pass on their idiot beliefs, and infants do not get a say in what they believe.. The are force-fed propaganda, and really it's just a political advertisement. People, fuck yourselves for being stupid and malleable, but don't pass on your idiocies to your most precious offspring. There's no greater crime.
Huh? The universe being created implies a creator, which is not a simple solution as it leads to the question of where did the creator come from? With the simplest solution that the creator must of had a creator which leads to... Might just as well say it's turtles all the way down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I'm comfortable with exposing him with these silly fictions.. BUT... only after he gets a sound foundation of learning in history, logic, and critical thinking. Not before, because I LOVE my child.
But those leading the 'Christian faithful' in states where these arguments are happening seem to have no understanding of what they claim to follow, nor how to actually live the examples their scriptures describe. What happens is that wanabee religious leaders learn all the political and power grabbing techniques, almost subliminally, since this is the shorter route to their 'pastor dream', and effectively bypass the hard work involved in actually internalising the spiritual discipline that should lie at the heart of a true spiritual faith. Then, of course, they cannot translate the abstract concepts and principles described into modern language and conceptual frameworks, and are left just spouting the external form of the words in their scriptures with no real understanding. This is tragic, especially in Christianity where there is a clear illustration of this problem, how it unfolds, and the natural egotistical reaction of those in power when faced with someone who actually understands what the scriptures are there to teach... and if you have a Bible to hand you can hardly miss it, since it's repeated four times in four different accounts at the start of the New Testament. How organised religion can make the same mistakes over again is an almost comical picture of precisely what the core of Christianity is meant, in part, to teach against. It's amazing how the faith, so distorted as it is, can still support many in their lives even still.
My understanding and point of view (with a background in maths and logic and a passion for physics, computers and internal martial arts) make the lessons of scripture/spiritual writing, whether Judeo-Christian, Buddhist, Vedic and Taoist, to be important and logical consequences of the maths and science we have discovered, explained insightfully in a way that contemporaries of the authors of these teachings would have a good chance of understanding. I have yet, in my studies (and I am rather thorough and minimalist about what I do and do not assume), to find a single teaching that, given a suitable interpretation, does not make proper sense in light of modern scientific discoveries. I just wish others would see it that way.
John_Chalisque
That's not evolution. Evolution is observed by microbiologists and others every day. You've just set up an unrealistic strawman up and stuck a label on it as if it's the only case. What motivated you to do it and why should we take your word on anything after such an attempt at manipulation?
Oh come on now - you are not thirteen years old are you? There's no excuse for such shit.
That's EXACTLY where this young Earth creationist bullshit comes from. Direct from the merchant in the temple Christianity-Lite franchises. Buy now to save your soul.
Now that's just shifting the goalposts. Even 'flu season proves it for all practical purposes.
Mendel knew the difference between his science and religion and was probably more pious than any reader here. That's the sort of person you are calling a liar.
Most of the "bible thumping Christians" from the states that I know tend to ignore most of the teachings in the new testament and quote mostly from the old testament. Quotes from the Book of Job and the psalms tend to be the most common with the rare quote from the new testament if it fits in with their argument.
What I find the most disturbing about the whole evolution vs creationism is that all of the schools bar one that I went to from preschool through to year twelve were "private" Christian schools and out of all of those schools, religion stayed in the religion class and science was kept in science. In science class, we covered evolution, the various incarnations of the homo genus, the major epochs covering the rise and fall of dinosaurs and the rise of mammals, and in religious class we did cover creation according to Genesis in religion, it was not toted as the absolute truth and we did also compare and contrast it to various other creation myths from various cultures including the aboriginal dream time.
What turned me off Christianity and organised religions in general (not that I was particularly religious) was my year 11 religion teacher, she was a hard core Anglican and the way that she tried to demonize the Protestants by claiming that the Irish were the Protestants and were the ones killing the Catholics from England, little realising that the Anglicans were actually the Protestants and it was the Catholics that formed the IRA. That plus the emerging priest pedophiles and a general history (ironically it was the handouts from the religion class) of Christianity lead me to the point where I did not want to be associated with it. Since that time I have been to church once and that was for the service for my grandfather who passed away a few years after my disassociation with the catholic church.
Capitalization is important; don't you think?
(Uhm... that's all I wanted to say)
Your second quote is from Timothy though, and as regular Slashdot readers know, anything Timothy writes can be safely ignored as drivel...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
If he were in North Korea or China he'd be better off as a gay man than he is in the USA.
He's in the USA.
If you can't be arsed to believe in the constitution that claims every person has an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then why the fuck are you in the USA? Go to some commie shithole where such rights do not exist.
Meh. I was brought up Jewish, so to me the entire New [sic] Testament is a bizarre acid trip anyway. :)
PROVE to everyone where exactly the matter came from for the Big Bang.
Science states that matter cannot just appear out of nowhere, yet, you hold to the belief that it did, and it created the universe...
Some of these schools are public. Ability to attend public schools is sometimes tied to where you live (i.e. which school district). Some parents can't afford private schools. Some can't lose the second income to home school. Some parents are single (through divorce or death or spouse).
In other words, some don't have a choice.
As long as Louisiana schools are teaching it using Louisiana tax money why should I care? I'm in Maryland. Let 'em waste their money any way they see fit.
Science states that matter cannot just appear out of nowhere,
Science states no such thing.
Matter can and does spontaneously appear out of nowhere. Any more strawmen for us to knock down?
But I can say not all of it was bad. My brother's kids went to a "Christian" school up to 5th grade. They learned the basics a lot earlier than their public school counterparts (lived next door) and did quite well. Unfortunately, 5th grade was when they had to pull them out because what they considered science, was actually a combination of "bible history" and regular history. Earth being 8000 years old. Everything started after Noah's Ark crashed. Pretty much whatever they couldn't explain, they said god did it. Not believing in the same thing and not wanting their kids to have a disadvantage in life when dealing with everyone else around the world (who don't subscribe to the same lunacy), they pulled their kids out of that school. Public schools were different, but they're doing better now.
It's just one school issue... not all of them. For instance, I live in the northeast. No creationism taught here. OTOH, the liberal nirvana of the People's Republic of Connecticut goes too far the other way. Take US History as an example. Non-exceptional students get taught US History in two blocks. The first block, the era of small government in the US is taught in 8th grade. It is taught largely as a fairy tale. I've read the book, cover to cover. It's slanted in too many ways to mention. It has ridiculous sidebars - with extraneous and/or irrelevant topics in US History put there to be "politically correct."
Meanwhile, the era of big government, Reconstruction through Today is taught in 11th grade. The focus of this book is things like the robber barrons, with little to no acknowledgement of the standard of living those "robber barrons" brought to the US. It shimmies right up to the notion that WWII for the US was started because the US cut off exports of oil and steel to Japan, instead of the fact that the Japanese bombed pearl harbor. The book glosses over the battles in the Pacific, and instead concentrates on the internment of Japanese Americans and the "questionable" decision to nuke Japan.
I insisted that both of my daughters take AP US History in high school so that they learn the entire history in one year, one devoid of this kind of historical revisionism that our school system foists on our children. Sadly, most of the students get the slanted version, and think that its reality. I doubt Slate will do an article on that, or the hundreds of other things I saw happen on my 9 years on the local board of education.
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
The best explanation according to who? The studies that have "proven" evolution are so skewed that most scientists when confronted about it won't even discuss it. Yet students are asked to blindly accept the results as the best explanation we have. To me that's dishonest.
Most Liberals do not conform to your rather stupid view point. Some of us even own firearms for when you and your other dehumanizing pals think its OK to form mobs and try to kill us. Surprise!
Skipping our outlying states seems stupid.
And it was taught in mine.
Which is why the AGW denialists piss me off so much.
The problem is that you are assuming that the creator is subject to causality. It's possible that the "creator", which could just be a physical process and not an imaginary person, exists in a universe external to ours in which questions of what caused what and who created who are meaningless because time does not exist.
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
Best explanation accord to the thousands or hundreds of thousands of people who have studied it. Funny that you put "proven" in quotes. Scientists would actual agree with that :) If they are true to the scientific method... they don't "prove" anything. They just provide the best possible explanation. That's probably why they wouldn't want to discuss it with someone who thinks they've "proven" it, because they know they are talking to someone who isn't going to be rational. If you have a rational talk with a scientist, they will gladly discuss theories with you. There is plenty of materials you can look at too (research data, notes, bones, real life observations). There is nothing hidden/dishonest about it. The only people who talk about it being "proven" are lying. Matter of fact... the reason that you know about these gaps in the theories are that scientist willingly disclose them... but that doesn't mean the theories are bad.
First, art and sex are not superfluous
Compared to civics and STEM, they are.
Certainly sex and art provide a richer and more soul-fulfilling part of our lives, but what good are they if you're locked up in a fascist dictatorship because your forebears were too busy chasing sex and art to pay attention to the theft of their liberties?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Don't teach evolution or creationism at all. Be totally scientific. Teach only what is known. Let the kids decide. Rather teach reading, writing and arithmetic, calculus, literature, business, science, religion ... stuff that they can use.
Certainly sex and art provide a richer and more soul-fulfilling part of our lives, but what good are they if you're locked up in a fascist dictatorship because your forebears were too busy chasing sex and art to pay attention to the theft of their liberties?
To be pedantic, sex and art are very useful if you're locked up in a fascist dictatorship. I mean, remember what Wilson and Julia did in 1984? Art and sex and the humanities are tools to express your disapproval of the oppressive state, for an oppressive state would have taken everything else. That human spirit is the one thing the state can't simply confiscate, and must break you down slowly, as the Party did to Wilson and Julia. To prevent that 1984 ending, society at large needs to remember its humanity (they don't call it Humanities for nothing). The Party in 1984 could crush 2 people easily, maybe even 2 million or 20 million, but crushing 20 million people with souls would at least be more difficult.
Evolution is taught so that the idea that man came from a pit of slime can be reinforced. Creation is taught so the idea that man is made in the image of God is reinforced. That what people should care about.
Don't know where they got their data from, but I do know of schools in states that are listed as not having any. For example, Bible Bapist School ( now West Shore Christian Academy) in Central Pennsylvania teaches Creationism and receives Federal Funding to purchase their curriculum every few years.
The thing is that it is apparently impossible to say anything about where the universe came from, at least from a scientific view point. The idea of some God[s] creating the universe for the reasons that most religious people put forward just seems so ridiculous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I wonder what the point of this post is, science or politics?
Evolutionists want to teach evolution because they don't like religion.
No, that's wrong. Evolutionists want evolution taught because it is the best explanation was have for observed and verified facts.
Evolution as a origin of anything is neither observed nor verified.
Evolution as a temporary change for environmental factors is both observed and verified.
Please don't let facts stand in your way.
Other modern translations: Ephesians: http://www.biblegateway.com/pa... Timothy: http://www.biblegateway.com/pa... The passage in Timothy is telling Christians to not complain, and to act in humility, even when they're being oppressed. The passage in Ephesians is saying the same thing. Here's the thing: Read 1 Peter 2:13: http://www.biblegateway.com/pa... which tells Christians to obey the law. In the old days, the law allowed for slaves; in the present day, it doesn't. The point is to always obey the law. As for Revelation: Many down-to-earth Christians believe it cannot be interpreted correctly in the present day. Some believe it is talking about the past; some believe it is a prophesy of things to take place in the future. No one who's emotionally healthy believes it's a literal book. Additionally, all that passage is implying is that (1) there is a creator, (2) he doesn't like those personality traits, (3) people with those traits are not going to be saved from [either the Earth's eventual destruction or "hell", I'm not quite clear on that].
And that "something else" should not be taught in science class. It should be taught in the "something else" class.
Fair enough. Then science classes should always teach that science may not hold every answer to every thing.
Besides, no-one can ever get us all the answers. The Universe does not exist for the convenience of people. It's extremely likely that we'll never understand many things about the Universe
We agree.
falling back on silly fantasies is an infantile response to the great mysteries of the Universe.
Correct, iff the preferred "fantasy" isn't the ticket to an "afterlife". Some bet one way; some bet the other.
Now we need a map that show liberal arts universities that let you opt out of american history classes.
Why has some idiot, moron, democrat marked this comment as troll?!?!?!?!?!? Because I have a different opinion than them!?!?!?!?!?! Yet again, I say it is time to invite democrats to give up their citizenship, and move to the facist, communist, socialist, country of their choice at their own expense - since they hate our country soo much!
He didn't preach hate. Some people pretend he did and put convenient words in his mouth. I'm NOT doing that. We don't know what he said on the topic, and I'm pissed off about various Go-bothering merchants in the temple telling me that he hates poor people etc.
No, evolution is taught because it is a logical, time-tested theory that holds up to scientific scrutiny and allows us to better understand, and make useful predictions about, the path that life has taken and will take in the future. Creationism (and the existence of a deity on which it is based) is rediculous fantasy that serves no purpose for a thinking person and doesn't belong in a science classroom any more than the story of the Easter bunny or tooth fairy do. You are an unabashed dope.
No, I'm saying that their suggestions of a Christian version of an Islamic state with sharia law are in opposition to Christian teachings. The separation of Church and State is one bit of the book they want to ignore in a quest to take over the state. I'm sure you know the sort of extremists I'm referring to and what political party they have been trying to take over since the 1980s.
no
Please consider what allocating that view to a strawman built in my name tells us about you. It's hard to tell if you are a real person or a cardboard cutout foaming at the mouth character from a Southpark script.
They don't need to prove it to be impossible. You need to prove that it's a credible idea, which you not only haven't done, but actively fight against the very concept of doing so.