The fallacies of creationism

[The Laughing Man]

I can't see anywhere sgtnull where anyone "credible" has called for the actual banning of a particular popular (thats "non-violent") religion. What they are saying is that it can't be a part of any govt. function, statement or property, as well as any policy. There are so many Americans, each one who has individual rights granted them by the constitution, that have so many different faiths, that do not recognize "Under God" as valid, and we must respect that, because the constitution says so. So, the Prez shouldn't say "Merry Christmas", when a large portion of actual Americans don't celebrate it. Thats excluding them, and not recognizing their particular faith. That means just remove all reference to religion, so individual Americans with individual rights and beliefs aren't offended or excluded, IMHO.

[sgt.null]

Christmas is a poor example, as it has more secular meaning now a days. i am talking about removing all historical proofs of religion in past goverment. if it be creches, ten commandments, crosses, words on money, etc.

www.mfc.org/contents/article.asp?id=140

jkalb.org/node/25

[lucimay]

Alan Sears, a former federal prosecutor in the Reagan administration, is president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, America's largest legal alliance defending religious liberty through strategy, training, funding and litigation. He is co-author with Craig Osten of the new book "The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values."

consider the source.

bias is pervasive, sgtnull. on BOTH sides of this argument. and who will convince who?
nobody wants to eradicate religious freedom. that's just bull hockey. but LOTS of people want power, and religion has ever been a road to that, in all parts of the world.
this country has a long history of religious zealotry, you can't deny that. some people just don't want that to be the case anymore. some groups are overzealous in their desire to keep government separate from religion. i think that is a good thing. i don't want the government involved in my spiritual life. likewise, i don't want to subject anyone else to my own personal spirituality.
and don't believe everything you read, either.

[sgt.null]

should i also ignore it when the aclu takes folks to court as well? you want to guard against religious zealots, well i want to guard against some of the same zealots and their opposite numbers. zealots on both sides are bad. and i don't trust that our courts won't take religious freedom from me. my Church has been on both sides, so i will admit that. but take anything too far, and we start at France and up with Russia. in this country we used to kill union members, wasn't that long ago. i don't trust that any freedom is absolute and forever.

[lucimay]

that's a good thing that you don't trust the government to protect your civil rights because they definately have an agenda to do so.

[sgt.null]

the goverment has no agenda to protect my rights. i have no money, old or new. i speak out against them. tradition holds that the goverment doesn't trust those of us who are not sheep. be it anarchists, Catholics, communists, blacks, Jews, socialists, gays, etc.

[lucimay]

sorry, that was a typo...
i meant the government has an agenda NOT to do so, protect your civil rights, that is.

[Zarathustra]

Yeah, I don't think they're trying to call ID science, I think they want it taught in the same forum.

They most definitely DO want to disguise ID as science. That's why they want it taught in the science class room. If you don't understand this basic, fundamental part of the debate, then you really should do a little research. This is the crux of the whole issue. If creationists will admit that their "theory" is religion, then they have lost the battle to insert it into taxpayer-funded public school science class rooms. There is absolutely no justifiable reason to teach religion in science class. That's like teaching pottery in math class--except it's also unconstitutional.

Anyone who wants to eliminate religion from America is unAmerican. There, I said it. I despise religion, but I'd fight to the death to preserve your right to worship. Freedom is more important than any other issue in America.

However, the government is not the country. We can be a religious country without having a religious government. We need to separate the two. If the government were a religious entity, a religious authority, then they could regulate religion (regulation is what the government is all about). It was precisely for this reason--to PROTECT religion from government regulation--that the Founders insisted upon separation of church and state. This separation protects you Christians! The moment you lose sight of that distinction (as in this debate), you are in danger of losing your religious freedoms.

[lucimay]

yea! yeehaa! someone more articulate than myself!!!!
thanks Malik for saying what i REALLY wanted to say.

[Prebe]

and this thread is what i was talking about when i mentioned the need for evolutionists not to prove their theory, but to disprove God.

I believe Malik has made abundantly clear, that he (and most other evolutionists) has no wish what so ever to disprove God.

Actually the opposite is the case: The so-called ID is a series of statements meant to disprove evolution. There is no way in heaven, that creationists could agree on anything, that bore the slightest resemblance to a unifying scientific theory (excluding Genesis, which I am sure only the most hard core fundamentalist would hail ass (Edit: As only has one s right? Sorry ) scientific).

If I am wrong please direct me to a site, where this scientific ID theory is outlined. NOT sites just trying to disprove evolution.

[Avatar]

Some good posts, and excellent points.

I particularly like Malik's suggestion that seperation will protect christian's rights.

Imagine for a moment that you were to do away with said seperation, and the government becomes a...Baptist one. What protection for Catholicism then?

I also agree that there is an attempt to disguise ID as a science...again, as per Mailk's post. If its proponents admit its not a science, how can they push for it's inclusion in the science curriculum?

--A

[sgt.null]

will the liberals here agree to vouchers? then you can have secular schools spouting off how science is always right and never changes. except when it does change, then they can all prostrate themselves at the infallibility of science. what that sounds like religion! we need to ban science now...

[Prebe]

When it does change, a new book is written and used in education sgtnull. But I think this is where I give up. You just don't seem to want to understand what science is, and why it should not be mixed with religion.

[The Laughing Man]

[Avatar]

Gotta say I haven't seen anybody, especially not our scientist types, claiming the infallibility of science.

Nor that science is never updated.

--Avatar

[I'm Murrin]

Gotta say I haven't seen anybody, especially not our scientist types, claiming the infallibility of science.

Nor that science is never updated.

--Avatar

Gotta agree - have heard plenty of people claiming that everyone makes that claim, but I've never actually heard anyone make that claim. Quite the opposite.

[sgt.null]

actually somewhere on these threads someone did make the claim that most of science that has changed should be disregarded. if i had more time i would find.

[The Laughing Man]

Gotta say I haven't seen anybody, especially not our scientist types, claiming the infallibility of science.

Nor that science is never updated.

--Avatar

It seems the peculiar aspect of that is that the people using science to back up their claims are the ones that claim it's infallibility, simply because it is science, while their opponents claim the opposite simply because of the lack of religious reference in the scientific perspective.

The scientists themselves indeed never claim (ok, rarely!) that it is "The Answer", just the "currently available" answer.(while the religious majority DO claim such and so disregard "fact"), Most of them actually hold very powerful religious beliefs, and by following science's strict ethical standards, they prohibit inclusion of "faith" in "fact".

[sgt.null]

cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/genpub/topics/thalidomide2-ccae.html

[Avatar]

Not sure I see your point Sgt.

--A