Thumbs Up

**Steppe Merc** · 08-10-2005, 01:23

Sure. Just as long as it covers Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judiasm, Christanity, Zorarastisim, Norse Mythology, Greek and Roman pantheons, it's all good.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 08-10-2005, 01:26

Sure. Just as long as it covers Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judiasm, Christanity, Zorarastisim, Norse Mythology, Greek and Roman pantheons, it's all good.

Why of course. I was taught all these things in school. Did you know that the founding fathers and our governent at one time made religous teaching is schools even universtities mandatory. That it was thought to be unconstitutional not to.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 08-10-2005, 01:34

Last I checked, they give you the cursory run of each major religion and it's history in school.

Yup that they did. But I suggest we learned much more about their relgous practices than you do today other than in those schools that stress these things. I used to love learning the Hanakah songs and the traditions behind them.

That's as far as it should go.

Again thats not what the founding fathers thought. Religion is still the best to way to teach morality. They wanted the fear of god to be in everyone.

**Steppe Merc** · 08-10-2005, 01:41

Again thats not what the founding fathers thought. Religion is still the best to way to teach morality. They wanted the fear of god to be in everyone.

They might of thought that, but today that should no longer be mandatory.

However, I would enjoy a more full religon course that included highlights of the history of that religon. We practically learn nothing about anything other than America, at least in my school. And there oppitional history courses are all dumb, except for Art History (which I'm taking, and it's an AP class to boot!)

**Kanamori** · 08-10-2005, 01:55

You are again making my point calling a theory fact.

If it were proven, it would be a law and, therefore, fact. However, it is not proven and, therefore, it is not fact.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 08-10-2005, 02:00

We could debate that all day. What it comes down to is that schools are there to teach you the practical knowledge necesarry for every-day life. Math, Science, History, ect. It is not there to impose a sense or morality in you.

Again this is against what the founders and writers of our constitution believed. If we keep ignoring them and the constitution we are doomed. Weve already outlived the time alotted most democracies. They would abhor secuarlism as it is espoused today.

**Ronin** · 08-10-2005, 09:21

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Again this is against what the founders and writers of our constitution believed. If we keep ignoring them and the constitution we are doomed. Weve already outlived the time alotted most democracies. They would abhor secuarlism as it is espoused today.

OT....but what the heck.

as i said before this is why it seems to me that it would be obvious for you guys to re-write your constitution.
a document, no matter or well it was written, loses it´s perspective after...let´s say 200 years and becomes outdated?.
wouldn´t it be better to write a new one than to keep bashing each others in the head debating what the founding fathers "meant" and what they "believed"?
not being coy here...just looking for an honest opinion.

**Duke of Gloucester** · 08-10-2005, 11:14

Papes contributions hit the nail on the head:

If it can be tested within the scientific framework, then teach it in a science class.

If it relies on something that is untestable then leave it to a religion class.

To do otherwise is bad science AND bad religion.

Some additional points are worth noting:

Natural selection is NOT evolution. There is plenty of evidence for natural selection actually happening. Someone has already mention the white and black moths. The theory of evolution suggests that natural selection is responsible for the development of new sepcies. This was Darwins leap of imagination. The theory of evolution seeks to explain the fossil record showing life changing over time and becoming more complex, with new species appearing and others going extinct. It is elegant, simple, and it fits the evidence, which is why almost all biologists and paeleontoligists accept it.

It is also worth clarifying what scientists mean by "theory" and "law" because these terms have been bandied about in this thread.

Theory: In science: "A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data." (Wikipedia) (Paradigm - way of thinking). Some people suggest that the Theory of Evolution is not a valid theory because you can't make predictions about things that have already happened. I disagree, because you can predict, for example, the existance of missing evolutionary links and then see if fossils which match your predictions are found. In any case, I am not sure that the "predictions" bit is the key characteristic of a theory. The important part is the "explains much of the data we have".

Law: "a scientific generalization based on empirical observations" (Wikipedia again - a really useful resource!). Note it does not have to be "true" or "fact". Some laws, e.g. Ohm's law are only true in some situations, others are only approximately true and this only in certain circumastances (e.g Newtons 2nd Law of Motion - an excellent approximation at speeds much less than the speed of light)

**Papewaio** · 08-10-2005, 02:04

But at that point, we have moved beyond scientific evolution to doctrinaire Evolution. The randomness of the mutation cannot be demonstrated or proved; it is simply an article of belief, no different in character from a belief that an intelligent Creator nudged the adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine bases of that DNA strand into the right order. Or that he took the clay of archaic homo sapiens and molded Adam in His own image.

If it can be explained without the need of an external source why add it? Very important why add this particular creation story, why not that of an Australian Aboroginal Tribes (each tribe has a separate creation myth and to label another tribes one as theirs is an insult) or Hindu belief system

Mutation occurs all the time. Some of it is called cancer. It happens. We know some of the causes like UV light changing the bonds in the cells. Oxidation again causing issues etc.

But I also don't think science is well served by elevating to the status of unquestionable truth the image of a material universe governed solely by random and otherwise inexplicable events. That's a worldview, not a scientific conclusion, and it has no better claim to our intellectual assent than views that postulate an underlying purpose, meaning, or destination for humanity.

a) Science unlike the poor mathematicians version Anthropology doesn't deal in absolute truths. He is making a false assertion to push his own one forward... Strawmans arguement if I understand the meaning of that phrase.

b) The material universe is random at the quantum level. It is not a worldview, it is part of the science that has lead to solar cells, nuclear weapons, LEDs, semiconductors, computer chips etc

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 08-10-2005, 02:15

And who are you to speak for them?

Now this is funny

Seems youve been taking lessons from Red Harvest. You ask me that question and then do the same thing yourself.

I think any one of them would take a long hard look at our government and say "What a bunch of dicks, let's start another revolution."

But I totally agree.

We could debate all day what they would and would not approve of.

Well we could try if you like. Care to start thread on the matter?

**bmolsson** · 08-10-2005, 07:52

The theory of, evolution, creation and intelligent design all deserves respect and consideration. If they are the truth or not can be discussed.
With respect, objectivity and tolerance, we can move our knowledge forward.