what useful purpose do republicans serve?

[Gabu]

The only problem is J-Mann's first point, which I think is a good one.  There are an awful lot of versions of creationism and to leave even a single one out is to be discriminatory to that religion and to not tell every possible possibility.  I think it would be much easier to teach evolution in science classes and leave creation to comparative religion classes.

From a practical standpoint, I would almost prefer if the origination of life were left out of school altogether. The last thing that we need to go teaching adolescents is that they are descendants of apes and that they are not special in the eyes of an almighty God. Maybe evolution is best left to a post-adolescent curriculum.

I would disagree with this.  I learned about evolution in junior high school and I didn't connect the dots to conclude that I'm not special in the eyes of an almighty god.  That idea is not really mutually exclusive with the theory of evolution.

[J-Mann]

*notes the irony of J-Mann, a social conservative, promoting the teaching of evolution vs. me, a social libertarian, promoting the teaching of creationism*

A bit ironic, huh?  But that kind of a question wasn't on the political compass

[DanielX]

The only issue WalterMitty agrees with Democrats on from what I can tell is gay marriage, and that's only if you accept the position that Democrats are for gay marriage, which they don't.

i oppose the death penalty.
i oppose the republicans never ending attempts to push religion on everyone (although im not as extreme as opebo)
i support affirmative action
i support gun control. (to a reasonable extent)
i oppose school vouchers

I support the death penalty, in some cases (only for serial killers and traitors).
I do oppose the Bible-thumpers, but I am against abortion and think that the left goes way too far with anti-religious zeal.
I oppose most forms of affirmative action.
I oppose most gun control.
I support radical educational reform, possibly including vouchers.

I am also a Republican. 

[Inverted Things]

Or ACLU is trying to push creationsim out of the books. It all depends if you're wearing right-wing glasses or left-wing glasses.

Creationism shouldn't be taught in public school.  It has no place there and would cause massive problems.

Why?

Give me a good creationist book to read. I will read it, and then write a detailed review as to why it doesn't belong in a biology class.

[J-Mann]

Or ACLU is trying to push creationsim out of the books. It all depends if you're wearing right-wing glasses or left-wing glasses.

Creationism shouldn't be taught in public school.  It has no place there and would cause massive problems.

Why?

Give me a good creationist book to read. I will read it, and then write a detailed review as to why it doesn't belong in a biology class.

Genesis, Chapters 1 and 2, from the Bible.

[Bono]

Or ACLU is trying to push creationsim out of the books. It all depends if you're wearing right-wing glasses or left-wing glasses.

Creationism shouldn't be taught in public school.  It has no place there and would cause massive problems.

Why?

In Kansas, conservatives are quick to want creationism taught as an alternative to evolution in public schools, but they have repeatedly failed to answer the tough questions about such a demand.  There are many, many problems with teaching it as an "alternative" in public education.

1) Whose creation do we teach?  Many Kansas conservatives are so blind as to think there is only one creation story out there - the Biblical Christian creation.  But what about that one Hindu student who isn't having his creation story taught?  Or the Buddhist?  Or the [insert religion here]?  Nearly every Native American culture has a unique creation story; do we teach them all?  Surely not; then a science course would turn into a class on comparative religion.  And don't think that just because the Hindu or the Buddhist is in the minority that they wouldn't take issue with a Christian creationism being taught in the classroom.  All it takes is one lawsuit.  All it takes is one angry parent.  This is what I don't understand; conservative Christians are angry because the theory of evolution is being "forced" on their children in the classroom, but they want to turn around and do the same thing.  Don't tell me they don't want to do that - I'm watching this debate in my own state.  I know what they want, and it's to force - FORCE - a religious teaching into public education.

We don't want to force out theory. We want Creation to be thaught alongside with evolution.
As for the matter of "which creation to teach", the United States is a Judeo-Christian nation, no matter how the secularists try to spin it. Besides, the Genesis acount of Creation is the only one to which there were made significant scientific investigation and modeling to demonstrate it scientifically.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you kidding? Evolution is weakening Christian kids allover the world. IF they are told every day at school: "Evolution is true. The Bible is wrong", how do you think they are going to get to Sunday school and study the Bible properly? I understand that is not a problem at Catholic Sunday school, since there isn't that much interaction with the Bible, but others may find it different. (and I'm an ex-catholic. I went to Catholic Sunday school for 7 years. I know what I'm talking about). You are just thinking under the faulty assumption that we compartimentation of such issues can work. Here's an essay with more about it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Allready answered in my reply to point 1.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No need to be rude.
Anyways, allready treated on my reply to point 2.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, altough I support the teaching o creationism in public schools as long as they exist, I don't think that is the best long term answer. the only way of saving the kids from a secular humanist indoctrinationg is ending socialism in education.

[Bono]

Or ACLU is trying to push creationsim out of the books. It all depends if you're wearing right-wing glasses or left-wing glasses.

Creationism shouldn't be taught in public school.  It has no place there and would cause massive problems.

Why?

Give me a good creationist book to read. I will read it, and then write a detailed review as to why it doesn't belong in a biology class.

I don't think there has been any creationist book produced in teh form of a textbook, but try searching www.answersingenesis.org for it.

[Gabu]

As for the matter of "which creation to teach", the United States is a Judeo-Christian nation, no matter how the secularists try to spin it.

It's not a "Judeo-Christian nation," it's a nation that happens to have the majority of its citizens as Jews or Christians.  Only three of the ten commandments are part of American law (don't steal, don't kill, and don't lie), and they're no-brainers.  I don't know of any other parts of the Bible in American law.

If you want to bring up the religions of the Founding Fathers, their religions are both in debate and wholly irrelevant to this question.

Even if it was a Judeo-Christian nation, that's no reason to teach something from Christianity to the exclusion to all other religions.  If we're going to teach something purely because it relates best to the majority, we might as well exclude all of the stuff from history that includes black people, since the majority of Americans are white.

Besides, the Genesis acount of Creation is the only one to which there were made significant scientific investigation and modeling to demonstrate it scientifically.

What "significant scientific investigation" has been done regarding the Genesis account of creation?  There's nothing to investigate, unless we can somehow find the Garden of Eden or something.  Creation doesn't predict that anything should happen that we can then test.

Evolution is weakening Christian kids allover the world. IF they are told every day at school: "Evolution is true. The Bible is wrong", how do you think they are going to get to Sunday school and study the Bible properly?

Uh, what teacher says "The Bible is wrong" when teaching evolution?  If there is a teacher saying that, he or she should be fired immediatley.  There is absolutely nothing in evolution that specifically says that the Bible is wrong.  The idea that evolution should be banned because it's anti-Christian is ridiculous.

Kids can learn about the theory of evolution in school and then learn about the theory of creation in Sunday school.  Unless you want Sunday schools to start teaching evolution, why should public schools teach creation?  Creationism is a fundamentally unscientific topic and, as such, should not be taught in a science class.

[Bono]

As for the matter of "which creation to teach", the United States is a Judeo-Christian nation, no matter how the secularists try to spin it.

It's not a "Judeo-Christian nation," it's a nation that happens to have the majority of its citizens as Jews or Christians.  Only three of the ten commandments are part of American law (don't steal, don't kill, and don't lie), and they're no-brainers.  I don't know of any other parts of the Bible in American law.

If you want to bring up the religions of the Founding Fathers, their religions are both in debate and wholly irrelevant to this question.

Even if it was a Judeo-Christian nation, that's no reason to teach something from Christianity to the exclusion to all other religions.  If we're going to teach something purely because it relates best to the majority, we might as well exclude all of the stuff from history that includes black people, since the majority of Americans are white.

This is why I mentioned that the ideal solution is not creation in public schools, but to end socialism in education altogether. Now, if schools shoud not cater to minorities, like Bible-Believing Christians, they should stop al that PC-nonsense of not allwoing religon to be mentioned, since people who are botherred by that are even a smaller minority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What "significant scientific investigation" has been done regarding the Genesis account of creation?  There's nothing to investigate, unless we can somehow find the Garden of Eden or something.  Creation doesn't predict that anything should happen that we can then test.[/quote9

Ok, rather scientific effort to show the erros in evoluton and explaing how current data allows for creation. Check www.answersingenesis.org or other site for more on that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, what teacher says "The Bible is wrong" when teaching evolution?  If there is a teacher saying that, he or she should be fired immediatley.  There is absolutely nothing in evolution that specifically says that the Bible is wrong.  The idea that evolution should be banned because it's anti-Christian is ridiculous.

Kids can learn about the theory of evolution in school and then learn about the theory of creation in Sunday school.  Unless you want Sunday schools to start teaching evolution, why should public schools teach creation?  Creationism is a fundamentally unscientific topic and, as such, should not be taught in a science class.
[/quote]

Teachers say teh bible is wrong by teaching evolution, altough the might not say it exlicitly. About creationsim not being sciente, I think you might like this op-ed.

[/quote]

[J-Mann]

We don't want to force out theory. We want Creation to be thaught alongside with evolution.
As for the matter of "which creation to teach", the United States is a Judeo-Christian nation, no matter how the secularists try to spin it. Besides, the Genesis acount of Creation is the only one to which there were made significant scientific investigation and modeling to demonstrate it scientifically.

Yeah, right...wait until your first lawsuit happens (and it would), and then your whole idea of a purely Judeo-Christian nation would crumble down around you.  If you teach one, why not teach the other?  The idea that God created the entire universe in six days is really just as fanciful as the idea of Hindu cyclical time and the belief in chaturyugas and karma.  IT IS NOT THE JOB OF PUBLIC EDUCATION TO UNDERTAKE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.  A Catholic school can do that, because its constituency is exclusive.  A public school serves everyone, not just the Judeo-Christian population. 

I am somewhat familiar with the scientific study of Genesis that you allude to, but it's far from concrete.  There are attempts to explain why the dinosaurs are buried so deep in the earth, etc., but none of it matches the scientific firmness of the evolutionary theory.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, and I am a current Catholic who was a Protestant for 20 years...big deal.  (And nice dig about Catholics, by the way...sorry, I'm one of them that does study the Bible)  I also went through an "evolutionary" public school system, and I don't remember being told every day that "Evolution is true.  The Bible is wrong."  That just ain't happening, kid...sorry.  There might be the odd story out there about one teacher railing against creationism, but most educators are scared stiff of a lawsuit if they offend anyone of any religious stripe.  Furthermore, I don't remember the unit on evolution being all that time consuming anyway.  We studied it for a day or two, we moved on.  Advocates of teaching creationism would have us think that our biology classes are dedicated to nothing BUT teaching evolution.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION COMES FROM THE HOME.  IF kids are being told that evolution is right everyday at school, then the parents have to combat that by instilling different beliefs in their children at home.  They should be active enough in their children's lives to know how they're being educated and take action to alter the course if their kids are being brainwashed by constant exposure to the evolutionary theory (which, again, isn't happening). 

Why should public school teachers have to teach religious education?  Answer that.  Should their burden be increased?  Should they be the ones at the forefront of a debate on whether to teach Judeo-Christian creationism (which you claim to be the only real option) or to include all creation theories?  I think that's very unfair to our educators. 

I do know what the agenda of the right is: I'm seeing this debate play out in my state.  A few years ago, the Kansas State School Board voted to take out references to evolution in science books, then turned around and pushed for the teaching of creationism.  How is that not forcing out evolution?  It may be different in other states - Georgia sought only to "de-emphasize" evolution.  But here, there was and continues to be a push to eliminate evolution in textbooks and turn classrooms into Bible classes.

[minionofmidas]

I strongly believe that creationism and intelligent design should at least be given a place at the table when it comes to public education.

It is not the responsibility of educators to teach the truth, but rather to teach the students how to find the truth for themselves.

From a practical standpoint, I would almost prefer if the origination of life were left out of school altogether.  The last thing that we need to go teaching adolescents is that they are descendants of apes

Indeed. Next thing they'll start teaching tigers that they're descendants of cats. Men ARE apes. Get that.
And I don't know what you're talking about: Teaching them. I don't know about America, but over here I'd heard that snippet (in the "descendant" form) long before it was mentioned in school, and long before I was an adolescent. And so has everybody else. It's not as if it was a shocking revelation anymore.

[Bono]

We don't want to force out theory. We want Creation to be thaught alongside with evolution.
As for the matter of "which creation to teach", the United States is a Judeo-Christian nation, no matter how the secularists try to spin it. Besides, the Genesis acount of Creation is the only one to which there were made significant scientific investigation and modeling to demonstrate it scientifically.

Yeah, right...wait until your first lawsuit happens (and it would), and then your whole idea of a purely Judeo-Christian nation would crumble down around you.  If you teach one, why not teach the other?  The idea that God created the entire universe in six days is really just as fanciful as the idea of Hindu cyclical time and the belief in chaturyugas and karma.  IT IS NOT THE JOB OF PUBLIC EDUCATION TO UNDERTAKE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.  A Catholic school can do that, because its constituency is exclusive.  A public school serves everyone, not just the Judeo-Christian population. 

I am somewhat familiar with the scientific study of Genesis that you allude to, but it's far from concrete.  There are attempts to explain why the dinosaurs are buried so deep in the earth, etc., but none of it matches the scientific firmness of the evolutionary theory.

That is why I said the ideal would be to end socialism in educatin altogether. Of course it would fall in lawsuits. I'm arguing what is better to do, not what is legal. "An unjust law is no law at all." Now, what are the two bigger interpretations of origins in the Unites States? Creationism and Evolution. Note, I don't think Creationism and Evolution should be the only 2 contradicting theories to be thaught in school. There are several other examples of differnet theories that could be thaught to put the currently thaught version under critical eyes, such as trying to balance the dominant Keynesianism in Economics Curricula.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, and I am a current Catholic who was a Protestant for 20 years...big deal.  (And nice dig about Catholics, by the way...sorry, I'm one of them that does study the Bible)  I also went through an "evolutionary" public school system, and I don't remember being told every day that "Evolution is true.  The Bible is wrong."  That just ain't happening, kid...sorry.  There might be the odd story out there about one teacher railing against creationism, but most educators are scared stiff of a lawsuit if they offend anyone of any religious stripe.  Furthermore, I don't remember the unit on evolution being all that time consuming anyway.  We studied it for a day or two, we moved on.  Advocates of teaching creationism would have us think that our biology classes are dedicated to nothing BUT teaching evolution.[/quote] I was just point out I was a catholic so you could't say I didn't know what I was talking about. But anyways, so, if a techer teaches a theory that denies the Bible account, how is he not telling the kids the Bible is wrong?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only thing a parent can do, which I totally support, is to get their kids out of the scam that is the Public Education System, and either homeschool them or put them in private schools. But the truth is that a lot of parents can't affoord that because they are drowning in taxes that are going to pay for those same schools they want to get theri kids away from. The only fair thing is to teach all views that have a scientific model explaining them, and face it, Jodeo-Christian Creation is the only one that has. IF other religion would go to model their beliefs, I'd be happy to include them in the curricula, providing the schools board would allow.(which is another thing, federal prohibiting the teaching of creationism is schools is federal intrusion upon states' rhgith. Or let me guess, that is interestate commerce because when those kids grow up they may have a job that'll take part in comemrce with another states?)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Public schools should disapeer. Period.

[J-Mann]

The only thing a parent can do, which I totally support, is to get their kids out of the scam that is the Public Education System, and either homeschool them or put them in private schools. But the truth is that a lot of parents can't affoord that because they are drowning in taxes that are going to pay for those same schools they want to get theri kids away from. The only fair thing is to teach all views that have a scientific model explaining them, and face it, Jodeo-Christian Creation is the only one that has. IF other religion would go to model their beliefs, I'd be happy to include them in the curricula, providing the schools board would allow.(which is another thing, federal prohibiting the teaching of creationism is schools is federal intrusion upon states' rhgith. Or let me guess, that is interestate commerce because when those kids grow up they may have a job that'll take part in comemrce with another states?)

Home schooling is just cruel, but you could be right about private schools: they are the better option if parents can afford them.  Until then, it's up to public education, from where I received quite a good educational foundation.

Just out of curiosity, how much have you studied other religions?  What comparative religion or anthropology courses have you taken that would lead you to believe that other faiths have any less merit in terms of creation theory than does the Judeo-Christian model?

[Bono]

The only thing a parent can do, which I totally support, is to get their kids out of the scam that is the Public Education System, and either homeschool them or put them in private schools. But the truth is that a lot of parents can't affoord that because they are drowning in taxes that are going to pay for those same schools they want to get theri kids away from. The only fair thing is to teach all views that have a scientific model explaining them, and face it, Jodeo-Christian Creation is the only one that has. IF other religion would go to model their beliefs, I'd be happy to include them in the curricula, providing the schools board would allow.(which is another thing, federal prohibiting the teaching of creationism is schools is federal intrusion upon states' rhgith. Or let me guess, that is interestate commerce because when those kids grow up they may have a job that'll take part in comemrce with another states?)

Home schooling is just cruel, but you could be right about private schools: they are the better option if parents can afford them.  Until then, it's up to public education, from where I received quite a good educational foundation.

Just out of curiosity, how much have you studied other religions?  What comparative religion or anthropology courses have you taken that would lead you to believe that other faiths have any less merit in terms of creation theory than does the Judeo-Christian model?

I neer said they had less merit, I said the Judeo-Christian theory has had more scientific effort for effectively modeling it.
I haev read quite a bit about otehr religions, but what I learnt was only on a self-learning basis.

[J-Mann]

I haev read quite a bit about otehr religions, but what I learnt was only on a self-learning basis.

Then it is insufficient.  Talk to me in...oh, say eight years when you've completed college.  By then you may have a slightly altered opinion.

[Bono]

I haev read quite a bit about otehr religions, but what I learnt was only on a self-learning basis.

Then it is insufficient.  Talk to me in...oh, say eight years when you've completed college.  By then you may have a slightly altered opinion.

I find that patronizing way offensive.
And college courses here are much more specialized here. When I take, say, a management course, I'm only gong to learn about management.

[J-Mann]

I haev read quite a bit about otehr religions, but what I learnt was only on a self-learning basis.

Then it is insufficient.  Talk to me in...oh, say eight years when you've completed college.  By then you may have a slightly altered opinion.

I find that patronizing way offensive.
And college courses here are much more specialized here. When I take, say, a management course, I'm only gong to learn about management.

It's not meant to be patronizing or offensive, just a fact.  At 15 years old, you've got ingrained core values (like believing there is a solid scientific basis for Judeo-Christian creationism that trumps other religious creation stories) that will be challenged by a good education.  You may hold on to your values or they may change.  I would only encourage that education; don't deny yourself a good course (or many good courses) that may challenge your values just because it does so.  You may come out with stronger values for the effort.

[Bono]

I haev read quite a bit about otehr religions, but what I learnt was only on a self-learning basis.

Then it is insufficient.  Talk to me in...oh, say eight years when you've completed college.  By then you may have a slightly altered opinion.

I find that patronizing way offensive.
And college courses here are much more specialized here. When I take, say, a management course, I'm only gong to learn about management.

It's not meant to be patronizing or offensive, just a fact.  At 15 years old, you've got ingrained core values (like believing there is a solid scientific basis for Judeo-Christian creationism that trumps other religious creation stories) that will be challenged by a good education.  You may hold on to your values or they may change.  I would only encourage that education; don't deny yourself a good course (or many good courses) that may challenge your values just because it does so.  You may come out with stronger values for the effort.

Just so you know, I wasn't raised very Christian-like. Nor very right-wing like. I came to my beliefs all by myself, and no one ever put anything into my head.

Besides, you are just creating strawmen perversions of my argumetns. I said there have been more scientific effort to model the judeo-christian theory of evolution. You say I said there is a strog scientific basis for Judeo-Christian creation theory. well, there isn't, just as much as there isnt a strong scientific basis for evolution. The evidence we actually have can support either side, depending on how we interpret it.  On this, I'd advise you to read this, , this and this.

[J-Mann]

Just so you know, I wasn't raised very Christian-like. Nor very right-wing like. I came to my beliefs all by myself, and no one ever put anything into my head.

Well, congratulations on that...I really mean that.  Don't think that your educational growth is over.  Keep learning, reading, and listening...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Indeed. Next thing they'll start teaching tigers that they're descendants of cats. Men ARE apes. Get that.

Not technically... Apes and Humans are very closely related and are desended from the same ancestors (and genetically are extremely similer. Mind you, so are cabbages...)

Exactly where we broke off leads to more rows than any other branch of science... ironically we actually know more about the evolutionary patterns of (say) a Gorilla than ourselves.

[minionofmidas]

Indeed. Next thing they'll start teaching tigers that they're descendants of cats. Men ARE apes. Get that.

Not technically... Apes and Humans are very closely related and are desended from the same ancestors (and genetically are extremely similer. Mind you, so are cabbages...)

Exactly where we broke off leads to more rows than any other branch of science... ironically we actually know more about the evolutionary patterns of (say) a Gorilla than ourselves.

We are closer, genetically, to Chimpanzees than (we+chimpanzees+bonobos) are to Gorillas.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Indeed. Next thing they'll start teaching tigers that they're descendants of cats. Men ARE apes. Get that.

Not technically... Apes and Humans are very closely related and are desended from the same ancestors (and genetically are extremely similer. Mind you, so are cabbages...)

Exactly where we broke off leads to more rows than any other branch of science... ironically we actually know more about the evolutionary patterns of (say) a Gorilla than ourselves.

We are closer, genetically, to Chimpanzees than (we+chimpanzees+bonobos) are to Gorillas.

Also true. Interestingly the genetic difference between Homo Sapians (us) and Homo Erectus is tiny, but the difference in bone structure etc. ia quite large.

[J-Mann]

Also true. Interestingly the genetic difference between Homo Sapians (us) and Homo Erectus is tiny, but the difference in bone structure etc. ia quite large.

The way I understand it, the genetic difference between us and A LOT of other mammals is quite small - significant, but small.

[minionofmidas]

Also true. Interestingly the genetic difference between Homo Sapians (us) and Homo Erectus is tiny, but the difference in bone structure etc. ia quite large.

The way I understand it, the genetic difference between us and A LOT of other mammals is quite small - significant, but small.

Depends how you define "small", obviously. IIRC over 80% of gene structure is identical across life forms in general - that's just what it takes to make life.
"Small" difference can then only be defined in relation to the difference to something else. For example, we're genetically more different from bats than from gorillas, but we're also closer, genetically, to bats than to, say, horses, let alone insects or plants.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Also true. Interestingly the genetic difference between Homo Sapians (us) and Homo Erectus is tiny, but the difference in bone structure etc. ia quite large.

The way I understand it, the genetic difference between us and A LOT of other mammals is quite small - significant, but small.

Yep. We share lots of genes with cabbages as well.