Yay for Kansas!

The first amendment speaks of freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Again, the amendment merely eliminates the possibility of a formal state religion, as in the Church of England. The teaching of intelligent design as a possibility does not teach a religion, it merely acknowledges the possibility. It also does not teach a particular religion.

Why the need to swear at subordinates? It gets their attention IMMEDIATELY, and in some cases that immediate call to attention may save their lives. We train with real ammo, real explosives, and inattention may cost lives, which to me is far, far more important than their feelings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

The first amendment speaks of freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

---

EXACTLY!! Thank you - that is something that people can't seem to understand. That was something that my mom taught me at an early age.

In high school, when I learned about evolution (and the big bang theory) in science, I pretty much thought it was a bunch of bunk and didn't believe it. I just think that where we came from is a much bigger question, one that should be taught at home (or at least not in a science class, I still like the idea of both ideas being taught in philosophy ;) ).

Actually, political correctness is NOT a Christian idea, at all. In fact, Christians are the ones being burned by political correctness. For example, we have to be so careful celebrating Christmas, and Pittsburgh went as far as to call it the "Sparkle Season" to not offend anyone. HELLO! Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus - that is the meaning. If you don't like it, don't celebrate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

ES, the slippery slope of politic al correctness took over the political institutions of this country long ago, unfortunately. Sex ed in schools without parental consent (at younger and younger ages), bans on prayer even if student driven and not lead by teachers, military speech codes (I can't curse at the lower enlisted, it might offend them), I could go on and on with the PC BS in society, but I don't believe this is PC. I think it is just backlash against it.

Again, both evolution and intelligent design belong in western philosophy class, not the science lab.

---

I have had to sign a note for sex ed for my kids every single year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caseysmom

I have had to sign a note for sex ed for my kids every single year.

---

So they get it through the school or so the don't get it? Just curious.

Yes they do get it through the school but only after I consent and we can go view the movies and all the materials they will see.

Quote:

---

The first amendment speaks of freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

---

Actually LH, you are correct. What you miss is the next step in the logic. Public schools are an arm of the government. Teaching religion in the public schools is the government teaching (i.e. establishing) a religion.

That is why private religious schools are permitted in this country. The government does not and should not endorse one religion over another.

btw...the school board in Pennsylvania that tried this?....all were voted OUT yesterday.

Hmm, I thought we had a good compromise going ;)

ES, we're going to have to agree to disagree, as usual. The teaching of intelligent design does not violate the first amendment for one very simple reason; it doesn't promote one particular religion, which is what the first amendment defends against.

Caseysmom:

There is a case in court right now in which a school in Mass had parents sign blanket permission slips for a class, and went into sex ed, which was NOT on the permission slips. This is not unusual.

First let me say, I respect and love all of you, no matter what your opinion on this or any other subject. :D

I can see where some do not want to be "subjected to religious teachings" (though I will disagree that intelligent design is religious teacing)
HOWEVER: we should not be "subjected to the teaching of evolution" either. Some of us think it's just a bunch of hoo haa. Shouldn't we have the same rights as you? not to be subjected to something WE don't agree with or want to be subjected too? :D

Hmm..maybe we shouldn't be "subjected to" teaching of mathematics, chemistry, physics... ;) A lot of those concepts are abstract, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by momoffuzzyfaces

First let me say, I respect and love all of you, no matter what your opinion on this or any other subject. :D

I can see where some do not want to be "subjected to religious teachings" (though I will disagree that intelligent design is religious teacing)
HOWEVER: we should not be "subjected to the teaching of evolution" either. Some of us think it's just a bunch of hoo haa. Shouldn't we have the same rights as you? not to be subjected to something WE don't agree with or want to be subjected too? :D

---

I totally agree with all of this. I really don't want to make any enemies here :) I think we can agree to disagree on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smokey the elder

Hmm..maybe we shouldn't be "subjected to" teaching of mathematics, chemistry, physics... ;) A lot of those concepts are abstract, too.

---

But we are talking about where we came from - the biggest question in most of our minds. I think that's a little different...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smokey the elder

Hmm..maybe we shouldn't be "subjected to" teaching of mathematics, chemistry, physics... ;) A lot of those concepts are abstract, too.

---

Hey, that would be fine with me! I was subjected to advanced math!!!!! It was horrible!!! I still have nightmares about it!!!! :D

Quote:

---

The teaching of intelligent design does not violate the first amendment for one very simple reason; it doesn't promote one particular religion, which is what the first amendment defends against.

---

Sorry LH...you are wrong here. It promotes A RELIGION specifically that is the concept of a creator. It does not belong in a public school any more than astrology does. It does not meet the definition of a science.

My issue hre is not the concept but whether it is appropriate for the government to be endorsing a religious tenet. Leave that to Iran.

So we will agree to disagree.

Yes - lets ban the teaching of evolution! And while we're at it, lets get rid of some of those other pesky so-called "science" courses like chemistry and physics. Molecules? Atoms? Quarks? If I can't see them with my own eyes, then I'm not going to believe them. I for one never need the Heisenberg principle or the second law of Thermodynamics in my daily life.


However, a theology course that did compare and contrast and search for common themes on the various world creation myths would be a most facinating class. There does seem to be an overwheming desire for us to understand where we come from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catland

Yes - lets ban the teaching of evolution! And while we're at it, lets get rid of some of those other pesky so-called "science" courses like chemistry and physics. Molecules? Atoms? Quarks? If I can't see them with my own eyes, then I'm not going to believe them. I for one never need the Heisenberg principle or the second law of Thermodynamics in my daily life.


However, a theology course that did compare and contrast and search for common themes on the various world creation myths would be a most facinating class. There does seem to be an overwheming desire for us to understand where we come from.

---

Evolution is only a theory, not an exact science so shouldn't be taucht as such. I never ever took a chemestry class (not even in college) and don't feel a bit deprived !!!

Sure we need to know where we came from. How else will we know where we are going? or when we get there? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catland

Molecules? Atoms? Quarks? If I can't see them with my own eyes, then I'm not going to believe them.

---

Hmm, that's kinda what I say to people who don't believe in God... ;)

I posted something a few weeks ago about the theory of "Intelligent Falling" that disputed the "theory" of gravity. "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down." I believe this too was being debated in Kansas. :p

Connie, dear friend, you're doing a great job keeping this civil and on track...not easy to do as this is a very passionate subject for debate:eek: And I'm not taking sides here when I say the following, just trying once again to clarify the definition of the term theory:)

Your comment about evolution, that "it's just a theory." Please go back and read what I posted yesterday, I worked hard on that:D People continue to repeatedly misuse the term, believing, and leading others to believe, that a "theory" is something yet to be proven. That is not the case!

Everyone in science class is taught what a theory is...a theory is just one EXPLAINATION of something that is fact. It does not mean that "it," the fact, lacks credibility or is invalid. You can still believe in Creationism, Intelligent Design and not use that argument..."It's just a theory.":) Not even taking sides on this issue!!! Just drives me nuts that the term theory has come to be so misused or misunderstood and used as weapon in their thesis', by those on both sides of the issue.

For argument's sake here, let's assume that man "evolved," that evolution is the fact... Now, the means by which man evolved is the "theory!" The apple will fall when dropped; a fact. The common THEORY is that it falls via gravity. But be it by gravity (one theory) or by some other means, explained by some other theory, fall it will!:D

And Lady's Human...the last time I was in comparative religion class, philosophy, we weren't discussing alleles, DNA, genetic drift, isoenzymes, morphology, radiometric dating, etc. Hard science belongs in the science cirriculum, not in the humanities. When and if the Intelligent Design theory of creationism includes hard, imperical scientific data, (I don't know if does or does not) then it too belongs in the science lab. Regardless, all benefit when both sides of the debate are freely discussed in a forum of some sort...like this:)

I would like to point out that evolution does not state that we descended from apes, or, even more ridiculously, that we descended from MONKIES. It says that all of the great apes (humans, chimps, gorillas, orangs, bonobos) descended from a COMMON ANCESTOR.

That's a BIG pet peeve...when people use the "descended from monkeys" thing against evolution....because if you pay attention it says nothing of the sort.

Also, every science teacher I have ever had has mentioned both theories, and almost all of them seem to think that they go hand in hand pretty well. I'm inclined ot agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

ES, we're going to have to agree to disagree, as usual. The teaching of intelligent design does not violate the first amendment for one very simple reason; it doesn't promote one particular religion, which is what the first amendment defends against.

---

No, it promotes the view of a very narrow margin of religions. There are thousands of creation stories around the world, and a class teaching a bunch of them would be awesome. :) I did a research paper on creation theories of different peoples once and it was enthralling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CathyBogart

There are thousands of creation stories around the world, and a class teaching a bunch of them would be awesome. :)

---

That would be a very interesting class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CathyBogart

I would like to point out that evolution does not state that we descended from apes, or, even more ridiculously, that we descended from MONKIES. It says that all of the great apes (humans, chimps, gorillas, orangs, bonobos) descended from a COMMON ANCESTOR.

That's a BIG pet peeve...when people use the "descended from monkeys" thing against evolution....because if you pay attention it says nothing of the sort.

Also, every science teacher I have ever had has mentioned both theories, and almost all of them seem to think that they go hand in hand pretty well. I'm inclined ot agree.

---

Then why do they wave those charts with a monkey gradually growing into a human under our noses? You know the monkey, ape, neanderthal, caveman, modern man chart????

By the way, a COMMON ANCESTOR, means they decended from the same thing. If the chart shows a monkey first, they would have decended from a monkey. And why did some of them stay monkeys?

Sandra, I use the term theroy for evolution because to me, evolution is not a proven fact. A species may adapt to a degree, but when I was in school, back in the stone ages (with nary a caveman in sight), we were taught evolution meant that species could evolve into another one aka monkey into man. Of course, we ARE in Kansas! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smokey the elder

Hmm..maybe we shouldn't be "subjected to" teaching of mathematics, chemistry, physics... ;) A lot of those concepts are abstract, too.

---

I'm afraid you will easily win with that proposal ;) I always hate when people can easily say "Oh I always HATED math".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by momoffuzzyfaces

Then why do they wave those charts with a monkey gradually growing into a human under our noses? You know the monkey, ape, neanderthal, caveman, modern man chart????

By the way, a COMMON ANCESTOR, means they decended from the same thing. If the chart shows a monkey first, they would have decended from a monkey. And why did some of them stay monkeys?

---

I've never seen a chart like that....it's horribly inaccurate. IF there is a common ancester between humand and apes it likely had the characteristics of all of them to a small degree, and then because more specialized over time depending on geographic isolation and other factors until it became a bunch of different species.

IF there is an ancestral type of ape, no ape (or monkey) living today would resemble it because it would have had to change and adapt to the changing environment. There are many many fossils that COULD be an 'ancestral type' or something along the path between the ancestral type and today.